I'm affraid it won't be long

[ignatiusjk]

I'm affraid it won't be long before I leave my treasured 4x5 at home on my trips to Yosemite. My digital has so much more resolution and sharpness that I don't see the need in lugging around 25-30 pounds of camera gear anymore.When I make 16x20's from my digital files there every bit as good if not better than my 4x5 negs.I'm going to Yosemite in May and will bring my 4x5 but I'm only bringing aroung 6-7 holders instead of my usual 12-15 holders.It's sad but it's the new reality.I'll miss composing the image on the ground glass and setting the fstop,shutter speed and I miss pressing the cable release.About the only thing I won't miss is people asking me "what kind of camera is that".I wonder if the digital age was around in the mid fifties would Ansel Adams had left his 8x10 at home?

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm affraid it won't be long before I leave my treasured 4x5 at home on my trips to Yosemite. My digital has so much more resolution and sharpness that I don't see the need in lugging around 25-30 pounds of camera gear anymore.When I make 16x20's from my digital files there every bit as good if not better than my 4x5 negs.I'm going to Yosemite in May and will bring my 4x5 but I'm only bringing aroung 6-7 holders instead of my usual 12-15 holders.It's sad but it's the new reality.I'll miss composing the image on the ground glass and setting the fstop,shutter speed and I miss pressing the cable release.About the only thing I won't miss is people asking me "what kind of camera is that".I wonder if the digital age was around in the mid fifties would Ansel Adams had left his 8x10 at home?

I'll say two things. First, there is more to a fine print than resolution and sharpness.
Second, I think you need to work on your technique with the 4x5, at the camera and printing levels.

[John Kasaian]

Ho-hum :rolleyes:

[paulr]

He started leaving it at home in the 60's when it got too big to carry. Who knows? He was a pragmatist about this kind of thing. He was also a geek, so I suppose there's a chance he would have taken a fancy to the new technology. Unlike Atget, for example.

I don't have many projects that the 4x5 is first choice for anymore. I've decided to keep it, though. I like it a lot, and it isn't worth a huge amount on the used market. Recent talk about things like copal shutters for LF being discontinued makes me especially hesitant to sell the beast.

[C_Remington]

I'll say two things. First, there is more to a fine print than resolution and sharpness.
Second, I think you need to work on your technique with the 4x5, at the camera and printing levels.

True, there's more to it than resolution and sharpness. But, what that is, doesn't belong exclusively to 4x5.

Why do you think his technique needs work? Maybe your digital technique needs work.

And yes, AA started using Hasselblad for many years before his death. Did he need to work on his technique too??

[ignatiusjk]

OOH,you go Remmy.

[Brian C. Miller]

I'm affraid it won't be long before I leave my treasured 4x5 at home on my trips to Yosemite. My digital has so much more resolution and sharpness that I don't see the need in lugging around 25-30 pounds of camera gear anymore.

How did you go about purchasing an IQ180-based camera system? Or is it a Hasselblad H4D-200MS?

(Of course it could be that there's a real problem with your 4x5, too.)

[tigger_six]

Wait, are you saying that your digital camera, whatever it is, has resolution and sharpness comparable to your 4x5 camera? There is something quite wrong here...

[Jody_S]

I wonder if the digital age was around in the mid fifties would Ansel Adams had left his 8x10 at home?

Any commercial photographer would, if the differences between digital and lf were not visible to the consumer. Or if, as today, the consumer preferred the look of digital.

[Corran]

Wait, are you saying that your digital camera, whatever it is, has resolution and sharpness comparable to your 4x5 camera? There is something quite wrong here...

I like how you are implying that no digital camera anywhere has resolution or sharpness comparable to 4x5. Surprise! The future is now, and yes digital cameras, even ones costing only about $3000, with a good lens, can match 4x5 color film, and depending on the type and development, also b&w film.

[MIke Sherck]

I'm curious why you felt the need to post that here. Are you asking for help, trying to mend the ways of the lost, or what? What are you after? Approval, rejection, argument?

Mike

[ic-racer]

If you are going the computer graphics route, you might as well just ray trace. I will save you the hassle of having to lug around any equipment...

[paulr]

I'm going to Yosemite in May and will bring my 4x5 but I'm only bringing aroung 6-7 holders instead of my usual 12-15 holders.

You're bringing both camera systems?
Would be nice if you posted some side by side results.

[jp]

People will line up to fight/bid for your stuff. Might as well let it get used.

[IanG]

It's the OP's choice and the interesting thing is how many are returning to film sand particularly large format, so a loss will be others gain.

Ian

[johnmsanderson]

http://www.gregd.net/pics/funny/NotThisShitAgain_trek.jpg

[Vaughn]

For a minute I thought I was on APUG (I usually have both active on my browser so it is easy to get confused!)

Use whatever system that best speaks to one's own personal vision. That is what counts. Why one photographs is so much more important than what one photographs with...and eventually one discovers what system best satisfies the why.

Personally, ease of use and ease of printing are the last criteria I place on my art. I can sometimes get frustrated by the time requirements of being a single father of triplet teenagers on a limited budget, but I do not consider it important enough to sacrifice my artistic vision and the joy I get working the way I do. If the OP is satisfied with the end results he gets, then he should continue on his path and strive to make improvements in his vision and in his end results...no matter what his means are.

[BrianShaw]

C'ya. Wouldn't want to b'ya.

Really, though... good luck to you in whatever imagemaking you do.

[paulr]

People will line up to fight/bid for your stuff. Might as well let it get used.

I see your point, but I look at resale values right now and they're not great. And if something happens, like copal shutters stop being made and there's a scarcity of modern LF optics, the price trend could reverse, right in time for me to decide I want to do another LF project.

Also, I have more sentimental attachment to the camera and lenses than I do to the darkroom equipment that I sold.

I don't have anything so exotic that I should feel bad about depriving the world of my stuff ...

[Kevin Crisp]

I read the first sentence and assumed you'd moved up to 5X7.

[Drew Wiley]

Wow! More and more this is starting to look like the "Anti-Large Format Forum", as well as, "Since I'm tired of lugging that thing around, I might as well pretend that the gadget hanging around my neck is just as good". Dream on. Some of you guys should stick to the parking lot in Yosemite and not injure yourself.

[jcoldslabs]

Why one photographs is so much more important than what one photographs with.

Amen!

Jonathan

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's sad but it's the new reality.

Really? Not for me it isn't.

[thomasfallon]

I am a newbie on this forum. BUT... I have to call you out. I own the highest res Canon ever made. It could not wipe the ass of a 4x5 camera. It could not even hold the jock of my Fuji 680.

[Oren Grad]

Use whatever system that best speaks to one's own personal vision. That is what counts. Why one photographs is so much more important than what one photographs with...and eventually one discovers what system best satisfies the why.

+1

[Corran]

You can enjoy, and even prefer, LF while still accepting that digital photography has reached the point of equaling or beating film systems even much larger than said digital (in simple resolution/sharpness, which doesn't really matter). But we already hashed this topic to death in the Lounge, so maybe this should just get locked now.

[Louis Pacilla]

People will line up to fight/bid for your stuff. Might as well let it get used.


I see your point, but I look at resale values right now and they're not great. And if something happens, like copal shutters stop being made and there's a scarcity of modern LF optics, the price trend could reverse, right in time for me to decide I want to do another LF project.

Also, I have more sentimental attachment to the camera and lenses than I do to the darkroom equipment that I sold.

I don't have anything so exotic that I should feel bad about depriving the world of my stuff ...

I think jp's post was directed to the OP and not you Paul. At least that's how I read it.

As far as I'm concerned I'm thrilled for the OP.:)

[ROL]

I'm curious why you felt the need to post that here. Are you asking for help, trying to mend the ways of the lost, or what? What are you after? Approval, rejection, argument?

Mike

:D!!!

In response to the OP... well, I guess there's a tool for everything.

[AndreasT]

.....I'll miss composing the image on the ground glass and setting the fstop,shutter speed and I miss pressing the cable release....
I find it sad another one gone.
However I find you gave one of the good reasons to stay with LF..
Then again everyone should feel free to go where they want. Recently reading about Ralph Lambrecht going over to digital. It is a pity.

[Brian C. Miller]

I find it sad another one gone.
However I find you gave one of the good reasons to stay with LF..
Then again everyone should feel free to go where they want. Recently reading about Ralph Lambrecht going over to digital. It is a pity.

But Ralph had a stroke. He had trouble loading film into his camera.

[Brian Ellis]

I am a newbie on this forum. BUT... I have to call you out. I own the highest res Canon ever made. It could not wipe the ass of a 4x5 camera. It could not even hold the jock of my Fuji 680.

Actually the ass is usually behind the camera (regardless of the type of equipment being used).

[Alan Gales]

Use whatever system that best speaks to one's own personal vision. That is what counts. Why one photographs is so much more important than what one photographs with...and eventually one discovers what system best satisfies the why.



+2

I always encourage people to try large format but ultimately what works for them is what's important.

[Ari]

+2

I always encourage people to try large format but ultimately what works for them is what's important.

Exactly.
Among the work that still blows my mind after many years is Kudelka's Exiles, shot on 35mm.
Format is irrelevant in the face of great work.

[Bernice Loui]

Don't be fooled by apparent sharpness or resolution.... There is far more to expressive images than just that alone which too many photographers/image makers are obsessed with. Great images go far beyond the technical aspects be they film or digital based.

Some time ago I visited a friend who is a student at Stanford U. There was a experimental Gigapixel camera being worked on along with a 40"x50" color image made using this camera. The file size was well into the Gigapixel range. Sharp with high resolution it was indeed based on nose distance examination.. Still the sharpness/resolution was no better than what can be achieved using 5x7 film with good optics and all the associated requirements.

Some may remember me wondering what the current state of digital is today as that was my digital point of reference and wanted to know just how far the current digital imaging technology has evolved. To this date, I'm not convinced digital offers a higher quality aesthetics, it does offer a different aesthetics and a different set of creative tools for image makers. Nothing more, nothing less

This discussion reminds me of when Fuji Velvia was introduced. It took the photography market by storm and many, many photographers RAVED about how good it is and why everybody should use it for every image made. So, I got some in roll and sheet, tried it, only to find the color is not accurate, contrast high, color saturation extreme and high sharpness-resolution... to the point where it looks like painted animation. Great for some, awful for others..

It seems many image makers are drawn to items that offer something different or something instant and easy to use rather than trying to learn how to get the very best out of the tools and methods that have a long history of proven success.

What has been written may not and should never be defined as law, but my opinion of the current state of image making and the on going debate or Digital -vs- film...


-Newer is not always better, be completely aware before ditching what is known and leaping into the unknown.. Know if what is being sold is driven by marketing hype or scientific fact.

Bernice

[Nathan Potter]

To reply to the OP, I have packed both 4X5 and DSLR now for almost a year. Generally I let the subject determine which I use. In retrospect I don't always choose the best camera for the purpose but I'm getting better. Certainly in the rain and wind I'll grab the D800E if there is a compelling image to be recorded. But I can't afford really top lenses for that camera so the image quality falls a bit short of the 4X5 lens selection I have. If conditions are appropriate I'll pick the 4X5 and spend some real time photographing with the intention of drum scanning the precious few that are worthy of that work flow. Certainly I'll choose the 4X5 for B&W work on the few outstanding subjects I happen upon as long as time and conditions permit. The B&W is dedicated to analogue silver printing, although not quite exclusively.

Dunno; can't get hung up on one medium over the other.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[AndreasT]

But Ralph had a stroke. He had trouble loading film into his camera.
True, now I do not want to say anything wrong since he should tell his side of the story himself but as far as I know he has moved to a new house where he would have to rip up the floor for new piping for a darkroom.
Now regarding the thing about going over to digital, actually who cares? The photographer it is his issue. Me being a hopeless lost romantic couldn't do it, just loving getting ones hand wet and dirty and playing with the limitations and challenges of film.
With regard to sharpness etc., who cares. Is it that important. Too much strength is put into relatively unimportant issues.
Yes I believe Ansel would have used digital, I think most of the guys had used digital, they were human just like the rest of us. And most today use digital.
But digital or largeformat for that matter with the talk about quality and all that. It is not the first criterion to make a good picture.
What would Bresson have been like with digital, is it important. His pictures are great, and he did not need any high class techniacal stuff to make those amazing images.

[goamules]

I'm afraid it won't be long before I stop eating turkey pot pie, and start eating chicken pot pie.

[John Kasaian]

I'm affraid it won't be long before I leave my treasured 4x5 at home on my trips to Yosemite. My digital has so much more resolution and sharpness that I don't see the need in lugging around 25-30 pounds of camera gear anymore.When I make 16x20's from my digital files there every bit as good if not better than my 4x5 negs.I'm going to Yosemite in May and will bring my 4x5 but I'm only bringing aroung 6-7 holders instead of my usual 12-15 holders.It's sad but it's the new reality.I'll miss composing the image on the ground glass and setting the fstop,shutter speed and I miss pressing the cable release.About the only thing I won't miss is people asking me "what kind of camera is that".I wonder if the digital age was around in the mid fifties would Ansel Adams had left his 8x10 at home?

If you want to take your 4x5 or not, what does the number of holders you're taking along have to do with it?

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm afraid it won't be long before it's 8x10 season.

[SergeiR]

I'm affraid it won't be long before I leave my treasured 4x5 at home on my trips to Yosemite. My digital has so much more resolution and sharpness that I don't see the need in lugging around 25-30 pounds of camera gear anymore.

Ok. If it works for you and satisfies your flow - why not.

[Drew Wiley]

There are already a multitude of digital photo forums and review sites out there. If I want to investigate and discuss such
things, there are appropriate avenues. I really don't care what you shoot. But on an allegedly large format forum, I can't
quite picture a DLSR accomodating the stated parameters. "Better"/"worse" .... whatever, but it sure ain't large! Why does
one have to wade through all this underbrush just to get to legitimate view camera issues? Tired of large format? Fine. Just
do your thing, and I wish you well. Timothy O Sullivan actually lived long enough to witness an early model 35mm camera.
If asked if he would have used that going down the Colorado instead of big fragile glass plates, he replied, of course. But
what a loss that would have been to posterity, if he came back with Nat'l Geographicky snapshots instead of those stately
deliberate iconic images matched to the LIMITATIONS of both the equipment and the blue-sensitive emulsion. Or carry both
kinds of gear if you wish. I don't care. Just don't dump stuff utterly irrelvant to large format here, or expect some due
cynicism.

[DannL]

Recently when I found myself growing weary of hauling heavy view camera gear, I simply disposed of it and upgraded to a 4x5 that weighed much less. It was also a excellent opportunity to replace all my glass. The best move I've made in years. But then again, I will make "any excuse" to buy something different.

Whenever I think about going on a trip, I just Google it. I've saved oodles that way. :)

[E. von Hoegh]

There are already a multitude of digital photo forums and review sites out there. If I want to investigate and discuss such
things, there are appropriate avenues. I really don't care what you shoot. But on an allegedly large format forum, I can't
quite picture a DLSR accomodating the stated parameters. "Better"/"worse" .... whatever, but it sure ain't large! Why does
one have to wade through all this underbrush just to get to legitimate view camera issues? Tired of large format? Fine. Just
do your thing, and I wish you well. Timothy O Sullivan actually lived long enough to witness an early model 35mm camera.
If asked if he would have used that going down the Colorado instead of big fragile glass plates, he replied, of course. But
what a loss that would have been to posterity, if he came back with Nat'l Geographicky snapshots instead of those stately
deliberate iconic images matched to the LIMITATIONS of both the equipment and the blue-sensitive emulsion. Or carry both
kinds of gear if you wish. I don't care. Just don't dump stuff utterly irrelvant to large format here, or expect some due
cynicism.

It appears that the OPs workflow is digital from the negative, and I'll wager that the bottleneck is in the scanning/processing/printing section. So, he's probably correct when he states that his DSLR images are just as sharp as his 4x5 images. He's made a few threads asking questions about 2nd party lenses and other DSLR oriented subjects, too.

[paulr]

The OP is going through something a lot of people go through. A pragmatic decision that comes with a sense of loss.
I sold my enlarger and related gear because I found I could make better prints by other means. That didn't make it easy. I'd invested years of my life in darkroom work—the gear and the techniques and the science and all the quirks of my own workflow. Not easy to let go of all that. Someone making such a transition, believe it or not, is probably not doing it sell out or to give up or to piss you off.
No need to turn it into a ritual stupid argument.

[Brian C. Miller]

True, now I do not want to say anything wrong since he should tell his side of the story himself but as far as I know he has moved to a new house where he would have to rip up the floor for new piping for a darkroom.

I can see how between the two issues, disability from a stroke and lack of a darkroom, that would cause a person to use a digital camera over a film camera.



forced into digital

OK, this iis it!circumstances are forcing me into goingdigital all the way; i had the pumber over this morning, aand he verifiedthat turning theselected room into a darkroom would require major surgery to the house and a hefty budget. i don't mind the money, but i don't want my walls ripped open and my floors dg up. this is it. i'm out of analog alltogether now. for a fraction of the cost and no dust, i can get a state-of -the-art digital printer an do first -class BW PRINTINGin 16x20;goog byeAPUG and hello DPUG!it was great while it lasted.

From reading other posts he moved, bought an 8x10 Durst, and then found out that his house needed major modification for the darkroom. Ouch.


Now regarding the thing about going over to digital, actually who cares?

AFAIC, it's dibs time on his stuff. :rolleyes: I think that what gets most of the people here up in arms is the statement that a digital camera, 135 format or smaller, does just as well as a LF camera. I'm guessing that ignatiusjk didn't get an IQ180 back or a Hasselblad H4D-200MS. I'm also guessing that he didn't get the "cheap seats" of MF digital, the Pentax 645D.

If a LF camera is usually used without movements, then it's just a bigger box camera. That's what 35mm and most MF cameras are, just a box. Myself, I wouldn't go to digital because I use movements most of the time, and it's why I started with LF in the first place. If that camera is on a tripod, then movements most likely will be used. A couple of weeks ago I was photographing the scene outside my office window, and my Toyo looked like it was contorted. But the buildings were straight and everything was in focus.

Now, what happens with a box camera? You'll need a tilt-shift lens, and also adjustments in Photoshop. When lines are straightened in Photoshop, there's a loss of resolution. That's just the way it goes.

So, yeah, there's always going to be a bit of a hubub whenever that particular statement is made. If he had written, "I'm tired of packing around a Speed Graphic for street photography, I'm going with a Minox instead," we'd understand. (Maybe some of us wouldn't, but I would.)

(Bresson is a non-argument, he'd never have packed a LF camera anywhere.)

[paulr]

Now, what happens with a box camera? You'll need a tilt-shift lens...

With the increase in quality of dslrs, there's been a revival of interest in these. Canon has introduced a couple that are of remarkable quality, and Schneider is expanding its line. These lenses cost more than anything I've bought for LF ... smaller formats shift the costs in the direction of the glass.

[ROL]

Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
forced into digital

OK, this iis it!circumstances are forcing me into goingdigital all the way; i had the pumber over this morning, aand he verifiedthat turning theselected room into a darkroom would require major surgery to the house and a hefty budget. i don't mind the money, but i don't want my walls ripped open and my floors dg up. this is it. i'm out of analog alltogether now. for a fraction of the cost and no dust, i can get a state-of -the-art digital printer an do first -class BW PRINTINGin 16x20;goog byeAPUG and hello DPUG!it was great while it lasted.

:confused:. Sorry Brian, I don't understand the use of this quote. I do not see where RalphLambrecht has posted here, or that he is even an LFPF member (I checked the member list, just to be sure I wasn't missing anything), though he would certainly be welcome. I only recognized this post from APUG. I certainly would not appreciate being quoted without reference in a thread of a forum in which I did not participate.

[C_Remington]

I think the debate over which format had the hightest resolution potential is actually a sidebar to the real message in the OP (Physical constraints will ultimately prohibit me from carrying as much photographic equipment as I would like).

With that said, what is the scientific evidence that, "[...the highest res Canon ever made] could not wipe the ass of a 4x5 camera."? As Thomas so eloquently put it.

I'll bet most statements in this thread one way or the other are speculative, conjecture and defensive without a shred of objective evidence.

[DannL]

. . . . With that said, what is the scientific evidence that, "[...the highest res Canon ever made] could not wipe the ass of a 4x5 camera."? As Thomas so eloquently put it. . . .

I just bought a newer 4x5. Does it have an ass? Is this something I should be aware of? If I'm gonna put my face near it, I'd like to know about these things in advance.

[jp]

I see your point, but I look at resale values right now and they're not great. And if something happens, like copal shutters stop being made and there's a scarcity of modern LF optics, the price trend could reverse, right in time for me to decide I want to do another LF project.

Also, I have more sentimental attachment to the camera and lenses than I do to the darkroom equipment that I sold.

I don't have anything so exotic that I should feel bad about depriving the world of my stuff ...

It was to the OP.. It's just stuff, and if something else is equally fun and meets his imaging needs, no need for drama.

I think prices will go up, but not as quickly as film, oil/natural gas mutual funds, ammunition, or high capacity magazines have.

[Drew Wiley]

Sure.... at a certain point in life we all have to lighten our load by rethinking gear. But there is a point where it's no longer
relevant to the Forum. I shoot a Nikon as well as an Ebony, Sinar, Phillips 8x10 etc - but don't bring my Nikon comments here
because it isn't relevant. My wife needs a new point n' shoot now that the TSA stole her old one - that might qualify for a
query on the Lounge, but I'm not going to make it a large format topic, or pretend that something which fits in a purse will
do what I need a 75lb pack for. Maybe if you're arguing a Phase 1 back versus 4x5 film pro/cons the film/digi war is relevant, but I don't understand what DLSR chit/chat has to do with any of this.

[Greg Y]

"But there is a point where it's no longer
relevant to the Forum. "
Thank you DW

[Brian C. Miller]

:confused:. Sorry Brian, I don't understand the use of this quote. I do not see where RalphLambrecht has posted here, or that he is even an LFPF member (I checked the member list, just to be sure I wasn't missing anything), though he would certainly be welcome. I only recognized this post from APUG. I certainly would not appreciate being quoted without reference in a thread of a forum in which I did not participate.

Since when did web forums become reference works needing citations, like from a newspaper or a magazine? If someone can't use a search engine to go from that quote to Ralph's original post on APUG, then some training is in order. The quote is entirely relevant to why Ralph isn't shooting film any longer, and it's an accurate quote. Really, would you have been just as upset if I put [ quote=Albert Einstein ]The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.[ /quote ], would you be checking to see if the physicist Albert Einstein, 1879-1955, had joined the forum and was posting here? Toughen up your sensibilities, and at least ask Ralph if he's offended by being accurately quoted, and completely within the context of why he's given up film for digital.

Load a holder, and go shoot some film. Fun! Really, it is!

[C_Remington]

"But there is a point where it's no longer
relevant to the Forum. "
Thank you DW

But the OP didn't start a digital only thread. The mention of digital was in the context of a large format discussion. More specifically, he mentions that he's very distraught that he will no longer be able lug his LF gear around. Then he mentions that, as a consolation though, his digital gear - which he CAN carry around - will give him comparable results.

It's EVERYONE ELSE that picked up the digital ball and ran with it. It seems like all the LF members ONLY wanted to talk about digital.

[Brian C. Miller]

I just bought a newer 4x5. Does it have an ass? Is this something I should be aware of? If I'm gonna put my face near it, I'd like to know about these things in advance.

*ahem* <joke quality="bad"> It could be where the tripod screws into the camera... </joke>

You just had to post that, and I was just listening to a "This American Life" episode about whether pork bung had been sold as mock calimari. And the episode ended with a taste test.

[E. von Hoegh]

But the OP didn't start a digital only thread. The mention of digital was in the context of a large format discussion. More specifically, he mentions that he's very distraught that he will no longer be able lug his LF gear around. Then he mentions that, as a consolation though, his digital gear - which he CAN carry around - will give him comparable results.

It's EVERYONE ELSE that picked up the digital ball and ran with it. It seems like all the LF members ONLY wanted to talk about digital.

Here's the original post:
"I'm affraid it won't be long before I leave my treasured 4x5 at home on my trips to Yosemite. My digital has so much more resolution and sharpness that I don't see the need in lugging around 25-30 pounds of camera gear anymore.When I make 16x20's from my digital files there every bit as good if not better than my 4x5 negs.I'm going to Yosemite in May and will bring my 4x5 but I'm only bringing aroung 6-7 holders instead of my usual 12-15 holders.It's sad but it's the new reality.I'll miss composing the image on the ground glass and setting the fstop,shutter speed and I miss pressing the cable release.About the only thing I won't miss is people asking me "what kind of camera is that".I wonder if the digital age was around in the mid fifties would Ansel Adams had left his 8x10 at home?"


Looks pretty digital-oriented to me. In fact he states plainly in the second sentence that his motivation is the superior quality of digital... Where is he distraught about a lack of ability?

[tigger_six]

With that said, what is the scientific evidence that, "[...the highest res Canon ever made] could not wipe the ass of a 4x5 camera."? As Thomas so eloquently put it.


Well, a guy with access to a microscope was looking at velvia 50: http://www.mindspring.com/~tony1964/MicroSlides.html and it seems from the photos on the bottom that
a 4000dpi scan does not extract all of the resolution from the film. A 4000 dpi scan of a 4x5 negative would have 320 megapixels. So comparing this to the 22 megapixel canon EOS 5d mark 3,
we get significantly higher resolution from the film, and on all levels we erred as to give advantage to the digital camera. Note that even a Kodak Portra 160 negative seems to have more resolution than
those 4000dpi.

Obviously, the problem might lie in the ability to extract the image from the negative as those examples show. A reasonably sharp 4000dpi scanner is expensive and results on a 700$ flatbed will be nowhere near those, you might effectively get about a 1600dpi from one of those, which however still translates into a 51MP image. But if you print optically, or expect improvements in scanner quality in the upcoming years, one can safely say that there is enough evidence to support that claim.

[paulr]

...but I don't understand what DLSR chit/chat has to do with any of this.

Other people do, and have explained why. Fortunately you're not a moderator, and so don't have to concern yourself with policing the forums. What a relief that must be.

[Corran]

Well, a guy with access to a microscope was looking at velvia 50: http://www.mindspring.com/~tony1964/MicroSlides.html and it seems from the photos on the bottom that
a 4000dpi scan does not extract all of the resolution from the film. A 4000 dpi scan of a 4x5 negative would have 320 megapixels. So comparing this to the 22 megapixel canon EOS 5d mark 3,
we get significantly higher resolution from the film, and on all levels we erred as to give advantage to the digital camera. Note that even a Kodak Portra 160 negative seems to have more resolution than
those 4000dpi.

Obviously, the problem might lie in the ability to extract the image from the negative as those examples show. A reasonably sharp 4000dpi scanner is expensive and results on a 700$ flatbed will be nowhere near those, you might effectively get about a 1600dpi from one of those, which however still translates into a 51MP image. But if you print optically, or expect improvements in scanner quality in the upcoming years, one can safely say that there is enough evidence to support that claim.

The giant smudged mess that is the "microscope" view of that Velvia is not usable resolution. I'm sorry but decent 4x5 color film can be more or less matched by the big guns in DSLR or MFDB tech in terms of simple resolution.

[irwinhh]

Yes some time ago I left my treasured 4x5 at home on my trips. My 8X10 has so much more resolution and sharpness as well as many more printable steps in the grey scale that I don't see the need in lugging around my 4x5 anymore. When I make 16x20's or 20x24's from my 8x10 negatives they are better than my 4x5 negs. I'm going to Texas in April and will bring my 8x10 and 8 holders. It's sad but it's the old reality. Funny, at one time a 4x5 was considered a miniature camera with a trade-off of size and cost for quality.

Andy :-)

[E. von Hoegh]

*ahem* <joke quality="bad"> It could be where the tripod screws into the camera... </joke>

You just had to post that, and I was just listening to a "This American Life" episode about whether pork bung had been sold as mock calimari. And the episode ended with a taste test.

Nonsense. Everyone knows mock calamari is foreskins. They're kosher, too. :)

[Sal Santamaura]

...The quote is entirely relevant to why Ralph isn't shooting film any longer, and it's an accurate quote...Actually, in my opinion, Ralph's entire APUG thread isn't relevant to why he isn't shooting film any longer. He blames construction requirements, but says the cost for that wouldn't be a problem for him. Others blame his health, but he doesn't confirm their hypotheses. I posted this


http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1471824

which he completely ignored. :) I think Ralph just wants to go digital, like so many of his age who are attracted to its "ease" and lesser weight/volume compared to film. He probably doesn't want to admit that, since doing so might be detrimental to his book sales. :)

Wait -- hold off -- don't shoot! I know that excellence in digital image making requires just as much vision and skill as it does using traditional methods. However, effort required to physically carry and operate a kit of large format gear is undeniably more burdensome than what DSLRs demand. That is all I mean by "ease."

By the way, this thread belongs in the Lounge. :)

[BrianShaw]

Hail, hail, the gang's all here! :D

[Brian C. Miller]

The giant smudged mess that is the "microscope" view of that Velvia is not usable resolution. I'm sorry but decent 4x5 color film can be more or less matched by the big guns in DSLR or MFDB tech in terms of simple resolution.

Would you feel better if Tim Parkin made the comparison on his microscope? Also, what do you precisely mean by the term, "not usable resolution?" Really, it's statements like that which get everybody riled up.

For the rest of you who are wondering about Corran's comment, please take a look at the link, and scroll down to the bottom where there are images of a truck grill. In all of the images, it's very recognizably a truck grill. I would not call that a "smudged mess." The area of film with that truck grill is probably less than 1mm square. The 4000dpi scan was from a Nikon scanner, and I'm sure that it would take Lenny Eiger to do a better job than that.

[E. von Hoegh]

By the way, this thread belongs in the Lounge. :)

But then the OP won't be able to read it without his little green light being on.

[C_Remington]

You're right. I was going off my initial impressions.


Here's the original post:
"I'm affraid it won't be long before I leave my treasured 4x5 at home on my trips to Yosemite. My digital has so much more resolution and sharpness that I don't see the need in lugging around 25-30 pounds of camera gear anymore.When I make 16x20's from my digital files there every bit as good if not better than my 4x5 negs.I'm going to Yosemite in May and will bring my 4x5 but I'm only bringing aroung 6-7 holders instead of my usual 12-15 holders.It's sad but it's the new reality.I'll miss composing the image on the ground glass and setting the fstop,shutter speed and I miss pressing the cable release.About the only thing I won't miss is people asking me "what kind of camera is that".I wonder if the digital age was around in the mid fifties would Ansel Adams had left his 8x10 at home?"


Looks pretty digital-oriented to me. In fact he states plainly in the second sentence that his motivation is the superior quality of digital... Where is he distraught about a lack of ability?

[Corran]

For the rest of you who are wondering about Corran's comment, please take a look at the link, and scroll down to the bottom where there are images of a truck grill. In all of the images, it's very recognizably a truck grill. I would not call that a "smudged mess." The area of film with that truck grill is probably less than 1mm square. The 4000dpi scan was from a Nikon scanner, and I'm sure that it would take Lenny Eiger to do a better job than that.

Okay, so what?
If I take a D800 file and resize it in Photoshop to 400 megapixels, and then took a 100% crop of a distant car, I guarantee that you could tell it was a car. Does it look good? Hell no. Does that film look good? Hell no! Scanning film is an exercise in compromise no matter how you slice it, but if they made a magical scanner that could scan and resolve 10,000DPI, that wouldn't make 35mm film suddenly able to have 120 megapixels of useful information.

Maybe "smudged mess" was too harsh but clearly that is not going to be useful information.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I too gave up on carrying twenty to thirty pounds of gear way back in my mid twenties. That was when I started packing a Sinar, then about twenty years later, I started packing 8x10 most of the time. Now that I've topped out and am
actually starting to need to reduce pack weight, I'm dreaming of a featherweight sixty pound load, but still ended up with
75 last summer. My weekend day pack might be around sixty. But I'm well over sixty, so don't feel so guilty about that fact.
Guess I could be happy with a DLSR if I threw a few river cobbles and logs in the pack so I could at least get some exercise.
It would need an extension back too, for a nice large upside-down image, so I wouldn't have to stand on my head to understand what I'm shooting. Maybe things would be easier in the southern hemisphere.

[tigger_six]

Okay, so what?
If I take a D800 file and resize it in Photoshop to 400 megapixels, and then took a 100% crop of a distant car, I guarantee that you could tell it was a car. Does it look good? Hell no. Does that film look good? Hell no! Scanning film is an exercise in compromise no matter how you slice it, but if they made a magical scanner that could scan and resolve 10,000DPI, that wouldn't make 35mm film suddenly able to have 120 megapixels of useful information.

Maybe "smudged mess" was too harsh but clearly that is not going to be useful information.

I looked in my archive. The following is a small crop from a scan of a 10x10 inch optical print from a 6x6 negative,
scanned on a cheap flatbed (V600).
http://www.100acrewood.org/~rasto/stuff/photos/500cm.jpg

The following is a desaturated crop from a 5dm2, framed similarly apart from format.
http://www.100acrewood.org/~rasto/stuff/photos/5dm2.jpg

Sure, it might be that the d800 looks a little bit better, it would have about 20% more pixels...
But still, that is a scan on a cheap flatbed, of a not too great and rather small print, printed with
grade 4 or so on RC paper, of a MF negative.

Edit: you did make me realize the V600 is a joke though. I only use it for web so I don't care, but I can see things with a 8x loupe that just aren't there when scanned.

[paulr]

The giant smudged mess that is the "microscope" view of that Velvia is not usable resolution. I'm sorry but decent 4x5 color film can be more or less matched by the big guns in DSLR or MFDB tech in terms of simple resolution.

This is the open question right now. I've been examining scans trying to get a sense of useable resolution. How much resolution is useable generally comes down to the signal/noise ratio. At high spatial frequencies, the contrast of detail drops. When it drops too close to the noise floor, it's not sharpenable or recoverable without making the image look like crap. When it drops below the noise floor, it's gone. Digital sensors have lower ultimate resolution than the best film, but radically better s/n ratios at any ISO.

I've been looking at scans, applying Photoshop's high pass filter, at varying pixel widths. I look at at the smallest radius where I see detail that isn't either sharpening artifacts (fat lines at edges) or noise. This is slightly less subjective than seeing how far you can downres before useful detail disappears.

Ultimately the only thing that matters (to me) is how things look in prints. I can say for sure that at anything short of mural sizes, the results are closer than what most people would assume. I find it generally easier to get a good print from a digital capture. Scans of my black and white 4x5 negs contain more detail than my best dslr captures. But not by much. I haven't yet compared color, but an experiment is in progress.

The best scan I've looked at so far was a black and white 5x7, which had roughly 80 megapixels of useable detail.

[paulr]

Trigger six, is that dslr image upresed or at 100%? It looks just terrible. That doesn't represent what that sensor is capable of.

[tigger_six]

Trigger six, is that dslr image upresed or at 100%? It looks just terrible. That doesn't represent what that sensor is capable of.

I also thought that when I saw it side by side, so I went through my photos, taken with 2 different 5dm2s and a bunch of different lenses (mostly 24-105L, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 100/2, 35/1.4 and 14/2.8 samyang), and all photos where the contrast is lowish at approximately that distance look more or less the same. Sometimes the 100% crop looks sharper but I believe that is only for near contrast-y subjects. Most of the landscapes are shot around f/6.3, sweet spot for most 35mm lenses. I don't think two bodies would be defective and you don't really get much sharper lenses in the center than the 50/1.4 stopped down.

[Corran]

Paul, what did you think of that 8x10 scan I sent you? I know it was just x-ray film. I need to find a suitable old TMX negative to scan at a really high resolution on the Cezanne.

I also need to re-scan that Provia 100F 4x5 shot I compared directly to my D800E (scanned on my old Microtek scanner), where I found it to look almost identical in resolution to the D800E, maybe a tad worse.

tigger- that really does look poor. I'm wondering about possible focus shift or other issues related because that really isn't near the "best" possible from a DSLR.

[Nathan Potter]

Actually using a microscope to examine film in transmitted light is a good way to see the intrinsic image quality in film as a base of comparison to scanned and DSLR origin. However it's best to use quality objectives and eyepieces such as from Nikon or Zeiss. At 50X or so the grain structure is easily discerned. At 25X a bit of a wider view of structures can be seen. Realistic comparisons can be made of the same area scanned at various dpi then outputted to computer screen or better printed at the same magnification as the microscope image. Of course a DSLR image can be viewed the same way at 25X or even 50X.

I've been interested in doing this for comparing optical enlargements to 3880 digital prints in an effort to understand the micro differences between all three methods of producing a print. Mostly just an intellectual exercise but also I'd like to have my 3880 prints come closer in detail to my optical prints.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[paulr]

I also thought that when I saw it side by side...

Well, I don't know. For comparison, here's (http://bondo.be/z/a860_80A_0451.jpg) a good quality example from a d800. Notice the total lack of visible noise, and detail all the way down to the pixel level. Most scans need to be downresed to 25% or less before you see this kind of pixel-level image quality. This was posted by a European photographer; he's also made some raw files available for people to play with. Even just in the jpeg, you can boost the shadows until they're full of useable detail before any noise becomes objectionable.

[paulr]

Paul, what did you think of that 8x10 scan I sent you?

Oh, based on the pixel dimensions I thought it was 5x7. Was it cropped? That was the most detailed scan I've seen so far.

[tigger_six]

Well, I don't know. For comparison, here's (http://bondo.be/z/a860_80A_0451.jpg) a good quality example from a d800. Notice the total lack of visible noise, and detail all the way down to the pixel level. Most scans need to be downresed to 25% or less before you see this kind of pixel-level image quality. This was posted by a European photographer; he's also made some raw files available for people to play with. Even just in the jpeg, you can boost the shadows until they're full of useable detail before any noise becomes objectionable.

That does look much better than my photographs, interesting. I can try to do a more direct comparison next time I'm somewhere with both cameras. I used to take both when photographing landscapes but at some point I realized I really don't like the results from the digital camera. (On the other hand I prefer digital when shooting people).

[paulr]

The ease of pushing the button on a digital camera sometimes makes it easy to forget the basics ... if you're going to get results worthy of comparing to large format, you need to take the kind of care that you take with large format. This includes the tripod, lens selection, consideration of aperture and focus, keeping the camera motionless, and the raw processing. We don't talk much about the latter here, but learning to process raw files well isn't that much less involved than learning to process b+w film. It's really a craft. The people I know who produce images like the one I linked put a lot of thought into it.

The real ease with the digital workflow comes after you've dialed in all these foundational elements.

I think there are great reasons to use both types of camera system, and it's a great era right now—we have so much to choose from in both camps. I just get riled when people say the comparison is ridiculous. I find the comparison interesting—often subtle, always evolving, and relevant to choices being made by photographers in the real world.

[Corran]

Oh, based on the pixel dimensions I thought it was 5x7. Was it cropped? That was the most detailed scan I've seen so far.

No, not cropped (other than the film edges).

[Brian C. Miller]

Okay, so what?

Uh oh... :eek:


If I take a D800 file and resize it in Photoshop to 400 megapixels, and then took a 100% crop of a distant car, I guarantee that you could tell it was a car. Does it look good? Hell no. Does that film look good? Hell no!

That's a micrograph of film, not the resize of a digital image. And it looks like it's getting close to the "one dye clump, two dye clump, three dye clump. four ..." level of magnification.

From reading that web page, the point seems to be that 4000dpi still leaves information on the film sitting on the table, as it were. There's demonstrably more there than 4000dpi. Lenny scans 35mm and MF at 8000dpi, and it would require his expertise and that resolution to resolve digitally what is shown in the micrograph of the film. This isn't about whether a truck grill is photogenic, it's about whether the 4000dpi resolves the available information, about 21Mp. So it results in this question: which will look better, a 13x19 enlargement from the 35mm film, or the 13x19 print of the file scanned from that film?

Tim Parkin's Big Camera Comparison (http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/) demonstrates quite a difference between 4x5 and the IQ180 in this comment (http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/#comment-2930).

And of course after the question of resolution is dynamic range.

[Corran]

I would like to see two drum scans from a 35mm slide, one at 4000, and one at 8000 DPI, side-by-side, and one set being the 4000 DPI scan uprezzed to match the 8000 and another set being the 8000 scan downrezzed to 4000 DPI. I'd bet money they would look mostly identical in resolution (probably slightly different grain).

Sure, you can keep upping the scanning resolution infinitely, but that doesn't mean there is any real gain in resolution. What I see is, as you alluded to, dye clumps, at which point there isn't really any point to that size enlargement / scan resolution. It is in effect, at least to me, like upscaling a digital file.

[Eric Rose]

Wow if you guys were fish in a pond the first fisherman to come along would clean you all out. Hey the guy is going to Yosemite! Woohoo, wish I could go.

[John NYC]

Tim Parkin's Big Camera Comparison (http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/) demonstrates quite a difference between 4x5 and the IQ180 in this comment (http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/#comment-2930).

And of course after the question of resolution is dynamic range.

I think Tim's test was great for potential resolution on big prints. I would like to see the same tests done for prints at 16x20.

[Drew Wiley]

All it takes is a glance at his setup to make it apparent it was a hokey non-objective test, that essentially tells one nothing
except that doofey technique is capable of less than ideal results.

[Drew Wiley]

Woohoo. Yeah, sure. I grew up just down the road from Yosemite. We referred to it as the "city", i.e., crowded, a place to be
avoided. I walked to a different valley in the Sierra this summer even more spectacular. People there (other than me and my two companions): ZERO. That was the terminus of the horse trail. After that, things just got better and better. There are a lot nicer ponds to fish in than Yosemite Valley per se. So to repeat my routine advice of where to go: study all the picture books, websites, postcards, etc. - then go the opposite direction! Even within the boundaries of Yos Natl Park itself there are spectacular areas you might walk for days without seeing another person. Everybody heads to the Valley or Tuolumne Mdw area. The Valley can be nice off-season, when it's actually prettier.

[andrew gardiner]

I find it sad another one gone.
However I find you gave one of the good reasons to stay with LF..
Then again everyone should feel free to go where they want. Recently reading about Ralph Lambrecht going over to digital. It is a pity.

I spent ten years trying to make digital work for me, buying better and more expensive cameras, sitting in front of screens with the best technicians endlessly manipulating photographs that to me always seemed wanting, printing Lambda. Finally I went back to film, bought a Mamyia 7 and all my issues just seemed to resolve. Now I'm out there with a 4x5 and i'm not looking back.
I don't need to look at other peoples comparisons, I don't care how 'scientific' they are. I know the differences from my own experience ( of which in my opinion resolution and sharpness are certainly not the most important). So take heart, the traffic doesn't just go in one direction.

[ignatiusjk]

Yes. I use a Canon Eos T1i digital and a Wista field 4x5 with several different lens.Schneider,Nikon,Fuji. And yes the resolution and sharpness is just as good sometimes better than my 4x5.My 4x5 shows some grain in the sky where my digital is clean. I've taken the same shot with my digital and my 4x5 and there really is no difference.

[John NYC]

All it takes is a glance at his setup to make it apparent it was a hokey non-objective test, that essentially tells one nothing
except that doofey technique is capable of less than ideal results.

Can you be a little more specific, Drew? What is doofey technique?

[Brian C. Miller]

Yes. I use a Canon Eos T1i digital ...

Not too long ago, Ctien offered a print for $19.95 (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/04/print-offer-small-sensor.html), from his Pen digital camera. I bought the print, 17x22.

"Well, recently I made a photograph using my Olympus Pen E-P1 and the Zuiko 45mm ƒ/1.8 lens that I think exemplifies the very best that a Micro 4/3, 12-megapixel camera can do. It's not a hero experiment; I can go out any day and make photographs of this technical quality. I just can't see any possible way to make a much better one."

In subsequent postings he described the post processing he used to produce the print on his Epson 3880. No, the print wasn't just a raw dump from the camera. He's done a very good job with it. I can see every rivet on the bridge. I wouldn't call the sky perfectly noiseless, but it is very, very good.

Personal analysis and choice:
When I decided that 16x20 was the size that 4x5 just got started going, that was based on looking at the print with a magnifying glass. Of course looking at an inkjet print with a magnifying glass shows dots. Like, duh. Right in front of me I have some contact sheets on glossy RC paper, and you know what? No dots, not with a 22x loupe. Of course, nobody brings a 22x loupe when they go looking at prints. But one is silver on paper, and the other is ink on paper. And yes, a magnifying glass does tell the difference, and does it quite easily.

[Corran]

And how about a Lightjet print from a digital file?
Equating digital output automatically as an ink print is folly.

[patrickjames]

If the OP thinks a Canon T1i is better than a 4x5 he is doing something completely wrong with the 4x5 or smoking something wacky....

Gotta love the internet!

Any bozo can make a claim that results in a bunch of arguments.

I don't think there is a method yet of extracting all of the information from film. When a comparison is made between a digital file and an electron microscope image of a negative and the digital file is better, I will believe it. The post above with the regular microscope image tends to support my contention. The limitation is not with the film but by the means of reproduction.

Until then, people believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence, or put another way, with the poor evidence they have in front of them. If it is easier for you to shoot digitally, then by all means go for it. Just don't make a blanket statement that it is better because it is easier for you. I make digital images too. It has it's place.

[Greg Miller]

Of course looking at an inkjet print with a magnifying glass shows dots. Like, duh. Right in front of me I have some contact sheets on glossy RC paper, and you know what? No dots, not with a 22x loupe. Of course, nobody brings a 22x loupe when they go looking at prints. But one is silver on paper, and the other is ink on paper. And yes, a magnifying glass does tell the difference, and does it quite easily.

What inkjet prints are you looking at? What printer? What paper? When I look at inkjet prints with a quality loupe, I don't see dots.

[SergeiR]

What inkjet prints are you looking at? What printer? What paper? When I look at inkjet prints with a quality loupe, I don't see dots.
and ink..

[Brian C. Miller]

Greg, Ctien used (and still uses) an Epson 3880. I use an Epson 2200. I can see dots on both, with the 3880 being finer. I don't remember right off hand what Ctien used for his paper, but I think it might be mentioned somewhere on TOP. IIRC, I used Epson Premium Luster. The loupe I use is a Peak 22x. (And Epson ink!)

TOP: Epson Printers Investigated (Product Variability Part II) (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/07/variability-part-ii.html)

When I looked more closely at the new prints, they looked "grainier." The old printer produced invisibly-fine droplet patterns; I could just see the individual ink droplets in the new prints. Not so "hurray."

There is product variability which must be factored into what you have. For instance, the above blog post recounts Ctien's disappointment with his replacement 3880 printer. While the printer met factory specifications and manufacturing tolerances, it wasn't as good as the printer it replaced. Take a look at the images and his comments. I found it quite interesting.

I have seen the same thing with Epson scanners. My 750 produces really good results. Other people have not had good results with their 750, and there's a thread here about that, with images. If my 750 produced scans with "jiggles" like theirs, I'd have sent the scanner back under warranty.

[SergeiR]

Not too long ago, Ctien offered a print for $19.95 (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/04/print-offer-small-sensor.html), from his Pen digital camera. I bought the print, 17x22.

"Well, recently I made a photograph using my Olympus Pen E-P1 and the Zuiko 45mm ƒ/1.8 lens that I think exemplifies the very best that a Micro 4/3, 12-megapixel camera can do. It's not a hero experiment; I can go out any day and make photographs of this technical quality. I just can't see any possible way to make a much better one."

In subsequent postings he described the post processing he used to produce the print on his Epson 3880. No, the print wasn't just a raw dump from the camera. He's done a very good job with it. I can see every rivet on the bridge. I wouldn't call the sky perfectly noiseless, but it is very, very good.

Well.. I exhibited and sold quite a number of images shot in Rockies with E-510 / E-1 on 6-10mp. Printed as 30x40 (cm) and larger. No one complained ever about noise and details. Last September i went over my favourite spots and shot images with dMF (22mp) , and 8x10... I goofed up many things, didnt get colours right in slide film & etc.. But quite honestly, scanned at usual 2400dpi vs digital vs my old digital from 2006.. Pixel sharpness is by dMF, no doubt. Everything else.. 8x10 is just entirely different - tonality, everything.... Even with all the stupid mistakes i did (i am SO going back, armed with more knowledge and more time).

[Bernice Loui]

Been watching this most recent war on LFF over the past few days and it has been a rather interesting study in how blind to the bigger picture some can be.

The debate over sharpness, resolution with digital -vs- film is very much like the horsepower wars in the automotive world. This single factor alone is and never will be the determining factor in the overall performance of the technology involved. Yet, the heated, emotional debate generated is pretty amazing.

Why not simply accept the fact that digital imaging and film are completely different technologies, both have their specific merits and serious problems. Use each technology based on the image goals required. All this bickering and fighting is extremely counter-productive and amounts to much of nothing other than hurt feelings and swelling of more anger/hate and divisiveness which does NOTHING other than to fuel the fire of LFF's destruction.


Bernice

[Nathan Potter]

Well, I don't know. For comparison, here's (http://bondo.be/z/a860_80A_0451.jpg) a good quality example from a d800. Notice the total lack of visible noise, and detail all the way down to the pixel level. Most scans need to be downresed to 25% or less before you see this kind of pixel-level image quality. This was posted by a European photographer; he's also made some raw files available for people to play with. Even just in the jpeg, you can boost the shadows until they're full of useable detail before any noise becomes objectionable.

Paul, I've seen this image somewhere previously. It's fairly remarkable even for a D800. It's presented at 50X (75 inch wide) magnification and printing a small section at center shows a section of rope at a nominal 0.5 mm (500µm) linewidth. That's equivalent to a 10µm linewidth (nominally 50 lp/mm)referenced to the sensor surface. Not unusual for a quality lens but the quality of the demosaicing is pretty remarkable plus the fact that we're examining a composite of lens + sensor where 1/composite = 1/lens + 1/sensor, and means the lens really must be more in the 80 lp/mm category. I wouldn't want to print at 50 X 75 but might consider a 24 X 36 inch print.

Wish I had such a lens. The top Nikon lenses can achieve about 80 lp/mm (4000 LW/PH) at 50% contrast (see Photozone tests). I think this example represents about the best quality currently achievable from a full frame DSLR. I can squeeze this quality out of one of my old 75 to 150 Nikon zooms but only centrally and at about 100mm FL. and at a lower contrast.

Unit area for unit area my 4X5 with an 110 Schneider SSXL delivers about the same quality under ideal conditions but the 4X5 is nominally 13X the area so that is a clear advantage if I make use of the full area at equally high resolution - and that is more difficult to do with the 4X5.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Drew Wiley]

Per that Tim Parkin thing - you can prove anything with that kind of sloppy handicapping. Maybe both sides of the test were
half-assed. I don't have time right now to point out all the nonsense. He's got an 8x10 propped up on a twerpy little ballhead
that can't control shutter vibrations worth a damn. The film was probably sagging in the holder. Poor technique from the word
go.... And then you guys go quoting some photo guru or another ... and some of these guys I not only know and have had
in-depth discussions with in person, but have a very good idea of what their own work looks like in person (not over the web). Then there are people with more of a big-budget commercial commitment to the latest digital setups (way beyond what
probably anyone participating in this forum can afford), and I hear the pros and cons.... and I can make a sharper print in the
darkroom then they can with all that stuff. ... So no, I am not really impressed when someone shows up at the track with
an 800 HP dragster with four flat tires and an empty gas tank and tells me how a Vespa scooter is faster...

[Brian C. Miller]

Bernice, I don't see the digital vs chemical discussion as being destructive. For me, it is very instructive.

When Ctien offered his 17x22 print for sale, I jumped on it because I want to see how good 12Mp can look at that size. Now, I know that a 13x19 print from my Epson 2200 doesn't show all of the detail that is contained in a 6400spi-settting scan from my 750. The file is something like 120Mpixels of information. I wanted to see what 1/10th the information looks like. And yes, it looks very good!

The problem with these new technologies is that yes, they are new, and that product performance from the manufacturer is variable. Thus, I get good results from my 750 scanner, and other members don't get good results. So when Kirk says he scans at 2000spi or so, I'm guessing it's because his scanner gives him those jaggy lines. But all of us make the same mistake that the machines we use are as good as a high quality lens. One person can have great results, one person can have mediocre results, another can have horrid results, and all of it is with new equipment from the same manufacturers.

Another question is what is good enough. A post in the Lounge brought to light here a planing competition in Japan. Yes, a competition to shave wood. Now, some of us build a garden gate, and some of us build a fine cabinet. The garden gate carpenters say that a tolerance of 1/4-inch is good enough. The fine cabinet builders go nuts, and exclaim that a tolerance of less than 20mils is a bare minimum requirement, and actually represents a lot of slop that wouldn't pass muster with their products.

So when ignatiusjk says that his 15Mp camera is just fine at 16x20, I look at what Ctien delivered, and I'm sure he's right. Ctien used a camera with lower resolution to produce a lovely print of a larger size. It depends on what is photographed, how it is photographed, the post-processing used, and the size of the final print.

[Drew Wiley]

Also depends on the subject matter. Lots of the time in the field we are dealing with haze, changes in film plane which cannot be totally accommodated per depth of field even with movements etc - fun as a daily challenge, but technically impossible to iron out completely.... But again, detail is just one factor. Then you've got someone like Don Worth who set
up what were virtually shadow boxes on a wall - very flat subjects with tremendous detail - shot them in studio and printed
them on Cibachrome. The detail would absolutely blow away anything printed digital today. ... but esthetically, I was one of
numerous persons who asked, why not just display the shadow box itself ...the flowers would have faded when present, but
I'm just not enamoured about art copying art, or about avoiding the challenge of depth with essential two-dimensional subject matter to begin with. But anyone you who have seen those prints understand my point.... no inkjet is even in the
ballpark (again, referring to color prints). Yesterday I framed an 18X22 CAII print which, due to some atmosphere, really didn't look any sharper than an inkjet would, even though it was from an 8x10 original (highly cropped). But if it had been
enlarged to something like 3 x 5 feet, there would be certain unclouded parts of the image where you would detect the extreme detail, and the tonality or "look" would be a lot more seamless than any inkjet. But the image itself is a bit too
classically picture-booky for my personal taste, so doubt I'll ever bother printing it big.

[BrianShaw]

Why not simply accept the fact that digital imaging and film are completely different technologies, both have their specific merits and serious problems. Use each technology based on the image goals required.

If that could happen, it might also be the solution to world peace and hunger!

[Drew Wiley]

Some of this is just new toy mentality. Gotta have it - everything in the Sharper Image catalog mentality. Geekography as
far as I'm concerned. But at a practical level, there are very serious reason of workflow and scheduling which can justify the
expense of a digital back. Thirty or forty grand is no more than most folks spend on a second car, and if you are making a living this way, and most of it is for publication anyway, which is virtually never extreme in either size or quality ... why not?
I'd do it if that was my way of making a living. Personal work, esp in the field is a different subject. Why do people still go
fishing and deer hunting even though it's cheaper to buy fish and meat at the supermarket? It's about quality of life. So is
simply looking at the world thru a big groundglass.

[John NYC]

Per that Tim Parkin thing - you can prove anything with that kind of sloppy handicapping. Maybe both sides of the test were
half-assed. I don't have time right now to point out all the nonsense. He's got an 8x10 propped up on a twerpy little ballhead
that can't control shutter vibrations worth a damn. The film was probably sagging in the holder. Poor technique from the word
go.... And then you guys go quoting some photo guru or another ... and some of these guys I not only know and have had
in-depth discussions with in person, but have a very good idea of what their own work looks like in person (not over the web). Then there are people with more of a big-budget commercial commitment to the latest digital setups (way beyond what
probably anyone participating in this forum can afford), and I hear the pros and cons.... and I can make a sharper print in the
darkroom then they can with all that stuff. ... So no, I am not really impressed when someone shows up at the track with
an 800 HP dragster with four flat tires and an empty gas tank and tells me how a Vespa scooter is faster...

You obviously did not read it carefully and understand the parameters and the conclusions.

[Drew Wiley]

Actually I did read thru that whole thing some time back. What's the point? If you can afford that kind of gear and like the
result, go for it. You sure as hell don't need my permission. But when someone goes around saying that such and such cannot
be done with film, and I do it routinely, you can understand my skepticism at their own credentials. And I have very little patience for all these number cruching exercises by people who probably don't have a clue what a really skilled darkroom print
looks like in the first place, and aren't willing to get off their web-addicted-lardass and go look at appropirate examples.

[John NYC]

Actually I did read thru that whole thing some time back. What's the point? If you can afford that kind of gear and like the
result, go for it. You sure as hell don't need my permission. But when someone goes around saying that such and such cannot
be done with film, and I do it routinely, you can understand my skepticism at their own credentials. And I have very little patience for all these number cruching exercises by people who probably don't have a clue what a really skilled darkroom print
looks like in the first place, and aren't willing to get off their web-addicted-lardass and go look at appropirate examples.

Drew the conclusion was basically that 8x10 was ahead by a certain margin for most people. That is why I don't believe you read it or understood it.

Frankly I am skeptical of your own credentials. You seem to have little experience with digital. But you have a load of opinions on it.

[Drew Wiley]

I see it all, John. Every single day I talk with a dude who owns a Phase 1, a Betterlight system, and gave up on 8x10 film
simply because Ciba ended. 8X10 is now simply overkill for his customer base. He fitting Phase 1 into the commercial shoe of 4x5 for publication work. He hates the look of digital prints per se - and I'll bet he's got more digital gear mothballed in the back room, unsused, than most labs could ever afford. His last personal studio (one of three) was a six story highrise in downtown SF! I see pro digital prints every single week. I've seen lots of work by the top gurus on the foodchain - the people contracted by Epson etc to tell them what to do! Sometimes I interact at a technical level with people who charge a min of 40K just to set up a digital workflow to go to print. People like these would howl with laughter if someone claimed a DLSR was even remotely in the league of proficient LF capture. You seem to forget where both the tech and economic locus of the country currently is. I really don't care what you use. And I really don't care if someone came along with a cell phone that could take "better" pictures than a view camera. It still wouldn't be the same experience. If all this is so important to
you, why not take it up on some DLSR forum? I accidentally converted some DLSR people to film when they saw my actual
prints.

[Brian C. Miller]

Per that Tim Parkin thing - you can prove anything with that kind of sloppy handicapping. Maybe both sides of the test were half-assed. I don't have time right now to point out all the nonsense. He's got an 8x10 propped up on a twerpy little ballhead that can't control shutter vibrations worth a damn. The film was probably sagging in the holder.

From the page, in bullet points:

* Use two tripods for the 8×10 shot (a Velbon Sharpa/Carmagne CF tripod and a five series Gitzo tripod) the smaller tripod supporting the lens end of the camera.
* Use double sided tape for the dark slides for 4×5 and 8×10 (more about that later)

So two tripods for the 8x10, and film sag was definitely not a factor.

He doesn't show the test pattern results for color 8x10, so I'm guessing that it's a similar degradation to what was shown for the 4x5. I.e., 4x5 Delta 100 was 12 and Provia was 11, so I'm guessing a score of 13 for the 8x10 Provia.

And the IQ180 scored a whopping 5 for the same test setup.

The results were hardly skewed towards favoring the IQ180.

(Oh! The IQ280 has come out. 80Mp, though. Comparison Redux any time soon?)

[C_Remington]

People like these would howl with laughter if someone claimed a DLSR was even remotely in the league of proficient LF capture.

I doubt that.

[Corran]

I see it all (...) Every single day I talk with a dude who owns (...)

I think this sums up your experience.

[Drew Wiley]

So go join a little league team, if that's your comfort level. I'm slowly getting arthritic in the hands and probably will be reliant on 35mm some day. ... but until then.... But still looks like a hokey test to me. If you've ever worked with German
engineers like I have, or spent decades fine-tuning color darkroom techniques, then you might have a different take on all this. I'm not knocking the technology for what it does best ... but it sure can't replace what a view camera does well. Gotta
have the right tools. Guess if you feel more comfortable in the machine-gun school of philosophy, you will save some film expense. Not that the two approaches are mutually exclusive... but the way this argument is being phrased, the folks with
the BB guns seem to think they have the trump card. ... not the best thing for hunting rhinos, maybe for sparrows.

[Corran]

Interesting article Dakotah. Some of his conclusions regarding generalized resolution limits of various film sizes are dead-on to what I have surmised after seeing hundreds of scans and images from my D800E and earlier my D700.

[Drew Wiley]

Why isn't all this crap down in the basement, the Lounge where it belongs? Though Safe Haven is one of my favorite threads,
it sure would be nice to have a Geek-Free Zone for those of us who don't want to be continually bothered by pesky little
digital mosquitoes and all their half-assed reviews. If someone if mounting a SLSR on the back of an 8X10 for some reason
(and I know someone who does), or comparing a LF digital back to roughly equivalent film applications, I can understand the
logic. For all you Benedict Arnold types, however, why not just throw in the towel and be done with it - put your view camera gear on EBay so the rest of us can snatch it up cheap. Fine with me.

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe some more snakes should be in the River... that should take care of 'em. But I guess copperheads and diamondbacks
wouldn't do too well in that climate. I drive past places like that.... damn near ran over a couple of moose one time ... then
into the Winds where I walked a week without encountering anyone else, but maybe it was my tolerance for mosquitoes which determined that! I'm afraid I'll be heartbroken crossing Wyoming these days with all that energy dev mauling the
sage landscapes. Just returned from Kaui, and all those spots I'd had to myself with a 4x5 twenty years ago now have
tour busses, guard rails, and trinket stands. Wish I'd packed a P67 hand camera, but did manage to pull off a couple of 4x5
shots eventually. But once you do cross over the pass away from Jackson Hole, the backside of the Tetons seems relatively
quiet for roadside photog. I really don't know when I'll hit the road again, maybe in a couple of yrs when I'm retired. The last
several summers I got real spoiled on my High Sierra checklist - a short drive then into solitude for days on end. But the fishing was boring - you just throw your line and, and as fast as you can reel it in, there will be a trout on it, one after another.

[Drew Wiley]

Corran - I think where digi color photog currently has a serious advantage is in the MF range, because that's exactly where inevitable little film blemishes in the sky etc become blimps. Once you move into true LF, film is a helluva lot easier to work with - not just size but robustness, dimensional stability, ease of focus, less spotting, etc. I've got to prep some 6X9 Ektar negs tonite, and they're hell to work with compared to even 4x5. If that is primarily what I shot, I'd want to opt for scanning or outright digital capture in the first place. But optical enlargements still have their own look, and all the necessary contrast masking will pay off - but once this task is over, I'll be mighty happy to move on to 8x10 film. But this is a good little exercise on a new batch of paper - 6x9 onto 16x24, which will clue me into correct masking protocol for 8x10 onto an equivalent degree of magnification.

[Brian C. Miller]

http://diglloyd.com/articles/GrabBag/photographic-film-was-not-much-of-a-performer.html

Might read this one and see what you think.

I read through it, and I am comparing it to the Gigapxl project. The technique of the two photographers is radically different, and of course with radically different results.

Graham Flint would observe weather patters, and would wait until a bit after a rain shower to make the photograph. The camera had a special film magazine, and the film was very flat.

Diglloyd seems to have photographed when a moment presented itself, and "But of course less-than-flat film does not help matters, so you stop down more and diffraction is your enemy there." Stopping down does not compensate for film bowing in the holder. Also, the photographs show a lot of atmospheric haze. Between haze and stopping down like a maniac, I'm not surprised about his results and conclusions.

As I've written before, my Wollensak Optar has given me bicycle spokes at over a block away. What am I supposed to want from a lens? From reading the article, these fellows haven't sat down and applied themselves to get the most from their tools, and they are blaming the tools.

If you want to draw conclusions about equipment, prepare a test and stick to it. A random jumble of photographs is what it is.

[Drew Wiley]

Any damn way you slice it, you're bottlenecked at two points - the first one in, and at a minimum the last one out. Concerning just the first, I'm supposed to believe that the same damn top-end lens I use on a Nikon film camera is miraculously capable of doing something far more precise just because I stick it in front of a digi sensor? Suddenly you are crunching numbers not by a factor of two or so, but exponentially? And you miraculously never need to stop such lenses down beyond ideal performance to solve depth of field issues? All those kinds of issues magically disappear too. After a long
discussion with someone who REALLY knows his stuff, with a proven record of LF career, and now a paid consultant for turning Benedict Arnold, who I won't name to spare him grief from the usual suspects (and he'd want a thousand bucks up
front even to give you advice)... based on hard testing and highly controlled printed ....he unsucessfully attempted to prove
to me how with only six or eight SPLICES of Arca MF capture, he might be able to (with a lot of post-processing) get within
the realm of "8X10 quality". This guy could talk rings around you in terms of digi-techie-talk, and by golly, he's got proof...
after about twenty years of pioneering a lot of software and advanced printing techniques, he can indeed make inkjet prints
which are nearly half as good as the Cibachromes he used to make in the darkroom using just light!

[paulr]

Parkin's tests are interesting to me if you read all the way through to the followup article where he deals with diffraction. As he puts it, under the test conditions, quality scaled almost in proportion to film size. But once the lens had to be stopped down for increased depth of field, it got much more complex. This was where the IQ180 was able to equal or exceed the much larger formats in some circumstances. None of it is surprising; it all corresponds with the math.

[ImSoNegative]

i am a newbie on this forum. But... I have to call you out. I own the highest res canon ever made. It could not wipe the ass of a 4x5 camera. It could not even hold the jock of my fuji 680.

lmao

[paulr]

Paul, I've seen this image somewhere previously. It's fairly remarkable even for a D800. It's presented at 50X (75 inch wide) magnification and printing a small section at center shows a section of rope at a nominal 0.5 mm (500µm) linewidth. That's equivalent to a 10µm linewidth (nominally 50 lp/mm)referenced to the sensor surface. Not unusual for a quality lens but the quality of the demosaicing is pretty remarkable plus the fact that we're examining a composite of lens + sensor where 1/composite = 1/lens + 1/sensor, and means the lens really must be more in the 80 lp/mm category. I wouldn't want to print at 50 X 75 but might consider a 24 X 36 inch print.

He used a nikkor 85mm 1.4g lens, which happens to be one of the very best lenses made. I don't think there were any lenses this good even 15 years ago. I bet you're right that it would excelent at 36" wide, maybe a little bigger. And you could go huge if you didn't care how it looked from 10".

I get results pretty close to this with my Schneider 28mm shift lens. If I stay within it's (narrow) range of good performance ... not much shift, stopped down within a narrow range, etc.. I posted a sample from that in another thread that degenerated much like this one :)

[Corran]

Yes, you should believe that even old designs can perform spectacularly on newer digitals. Here's a snippet from what would equate to a 50x70 inch print, using a positively outdated Nikkor pre-AI 105mm f/2.5 (Double-Gauss), on my D800E. Oh and I think I was at f/2.8.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-77C5tEW06js/UUuQ_azZMKI/AAAAAAAADJ8/PimA9ZS4v3g/s1600/blahblahblah-2096.jpg

[paulr]

I'm noticing a curious couple of trends lately: people dismissive of a small format being able to compete with a big one, and people dismissive of big prints.

How big does everyone like to print? How many of you routinely print bigger than 40" wide?

[invisibleflash]

In his later years Ansel switched to a Hassy.

Shooting 4 x 5 has its own charm. As was said it is not all about res. And 4 x 5 is not a slacker in the res area anyway.

[invisibleflash]

I'm noticing a curious couple of trends lately: people dismissive of a small format being able to compete with a big one, and people dismissive of big prints.

How big does everyone like to print? How many of you routinely print bigger than 40" wide?

13 x 19 is it for me.

[Drew Wiley]

Just go print a damn forty inch print from one of these marsupial-mouse devices! I still contend that you have no idea of
what a sharp print looks like. Micro-films are capable of higher resolution than digital receptors, and no way they are even in
the ballpark with large format done with two bits worth of competency. The most experienced guy I know per Nikon actually
uses an Apo Nikkor process lens with his DLSR for astrophotog etc because it exceeds the resolution he can get with any
Nikon branded lens... and that thing will easily cover 8x10 film. Ever sat in front of a high-resolution monitor eight feet across? Ever seen one? I have.

[John NYC]

I think this sums up your experience.

Indeed. Drew probably DOES have a lot to offer on the things he actually KNOWS from his own experience. I am not convinced he knows anything about digital however. He constantly references his prowess and experience in analog. And in fact uses his claimed skill at this to discount others with fewer years. Yet he then denounces the real experience of others in digital with anecdotes of people he knows from his hiking trail, instead of confronting this head on and doing his own testing.

[John NYC]

I'm noticing a curious couple of trends lately: people dismissive of a small format being able to compete with a big one, and people dismissive of big prints.

How big does everyone like to print? How many of you routinely print bigger than 40" wide?

I am done printing big or even planning to print big.

For me it is 10x10 to 16x20. That is a photo you can be intimate with. And own. And display in a normal home.

[Sal Santamaura]

...How big does everyone like to print?...The absolute maximum is a rare 11x14. Typically no larger than 8x10, frequently 5x7 and 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 contacts. Mostly the latter size enlargements from 4x5 negatives.

Thank goodness I've never had to (and never intend to) sell prints. :D

[Brian C. Miller]

I haven't printed wider than 40 inches. There's only just so much space in my apartment. I've only done one image that size, but have printed it multiple times.

By my calculations, it would take at least a 40Mp camera to give me what I want at that size. Based on the quality I want, it would be a MF camera, not 35mm. And from my view, that would absolutely be maxing out what 40Mp can do. Is a smaller size of that image good? In a print, yes. But it really comes into its own when it's at 40 inches wide.

For presentation, my most common print size is 13x19 or 16x20.

And from what I have seen, 13x19 is entirely within the range of a 12Mp camera, for many shots. Not all, but many.

As for what fits in a normal home, it's height that constrains the photograph, not length. For an average 8ft ceiling, a 30in tall print is going to take up half or better with framing. But a panorama will fit nicely. And a panorama, or a simply wide photograph, is very nice, enjoyable, and happily hangs in many places.

[John NYC]

As for what fits in a normal home, it's height that constrains the photograph, not length. For an average 8ft ceiling, a 30in tall print is going to take up half or better with framing. But a panorama will fit nicely. And a panorama, or a simply wide photograph, is very nice, enjoyable, and happily hangs in many places.

That is an interesting and accurate observation.

Panoramas are not part of my goal personally, but it does add a twist to "what is a big print".

[Bernice Loui]

I'm going to toss much fuel into this fire.... against my better judgment..


This image appears sharp, yes. BUT..

It looks digital to me even on my note book LCD screen. The sharpness appears to be enhanced/processed in some way and the contrast range does not appear linear to me, color.. no proper point of reference to judge by. Note the high light burn out just under the eye.

Can one make a 50" x 70" print, sure. Will this image meet the vast majority of viewers, absolutely.. but it does not meet my standards for high quality color images...

Understand what is commercially acceptable and what working image makers need are not of the highest image quality, these hard working folks are deeply concerned with meeting deadlines and keeping their clients and art directors happy. Know the majority of images viewed today are on a screen from a digital source. These are more the root reasons why Digital imaging has almost completely taken over the commercial image making industry. It is not about image quality, but about economically driven marketing requirements. These are the same reasons why film does not fit well at all with the current digital communications world and technology.

There are very strong marketing forces at work here, consider how much $ has been turned from the selling and conversion of the image making market to digital. New cameras, new lenses (claimed to be MUCH better than before, Ha!), New printers, New printing medium, Inks, and all else involved in the image making process.. See there is much to be gained economically by forcing the image making market to accept this new thing and getting image makers to switch over by using the lure/bait of instant gratification, image control and ....

As for optics design, not much has changed unless you're willing to accept the marketing hype and ... The laws of physics that govern how light and refractive optics has not changed. This does not mean lenses do not have their individual personality, it does mean they all are forced to abide by and obey the laws of physics and market economics. A Cine Xenar Prime or Panavision Prime is going to out perform any mass production Nikkor/Canon/ etc.. lens as they should given Cine optics usually cost many times more than mass produced optics.

As mentioned before, there is a place for digital and film image making tools and process. It is a matter of what the individual artist's goals are and the image creation tools are merely a means. Regardless of digital or film, both requires a great deal of commitment, resources, talent and artistry to get the most form each.

To believe digital is superior to film, newer is always better and all that marketing ick.. is pure folly.


Rant off...
Bernice




Yes, you should believe that even old designs can perform spectacularly on newer digitals. Here's a snippet from what would equate to a 50x70 inch print, using a positively outdated Nikkor pre-AI 105mm f/2.5 (Double-Gauss), on my D800E. Oh and I think I was at f/2.8.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-77C5tEW06js/UUuQ_azZMKI/AAAAAAAADJ8/PimA9ZS4v3g/s1600/blahblahblah-2096.jpg

[Bernice Loui]

Pretty much B&W only.

Using full fame 5x7 film, usually 10x14. Occasionally 14x20.. anything with much greater magnification ratio is less than acceptable.
This is not about sharpness/resolution, this is much more about tonality, contrast range and numerous other factors that significantly impact the finished print.



Bernice




How big does everyone like to print? How many of you routinely print bigger than 40" wide?

[Greg Miller]

Greg, Ctien used (and still uses) an Epson 3880. I use an Epson 2200. I can see dots on both, with the 3880 being finer. I don't remember right off hand what Ctien used for his paper, but I think it might be mentioned somewhere on TOP. IIRC, I used Epson Premium Luster. The loupe I use is a Peak 22x. (And Epson ink!)

TOP: [url="http://theonlinephotographer.typep

I just looked at some prints made with an Epson 2200 using a Rodenstock 4x loupe. All I see is paper texture and some fine image detail that I cannot see with my naked eye; but no dots whatsoever. SO I don;t think anyone bringing a magnifying glass to the gallery will see dots.

Given that, I'm not sure I care what someone can see at 22x - I don't see how 22x has any real world relevance. Perhaps you can see some dust mites but that won't affect my viewing experience in any way.

Printing at 1440 DPI means each dot is about .018 MM (assuming no dot gain)(or 2 one hundreth's of a mm in other words). The gaps in between dots would be smaller than that.

I think the whole conversation is silly anyway. The true test of an image is the vision and artistry. If the photographer has great vision and execution, then it is up to them to decide what equipment best works for them. There are great LF photographers, and then are great SF photographers. To each their own. I'd rather hear Van Cliburn playing on a toy piano than me playing on a Steinway,

[Bernice Loui]

+100 ^


What else needs to be said?

Bernice





I think the whole conversation is silly anyway. The true test of an image is the vision and artistry. If the photographer has great vision and execution, then it is up to them to decide what equipment best works for them. There are great LF photographers, and then are great SF photographers. To each their own. I'd rather hear Van Cliburn playing on a toy piano than me playing on a Steinway,

[Corran]

Bernice, you hit upon really the point of this exercise for me. As I have stated many times (maybe not enough to satisfy some!) I contend that yes, in simple resolution metrics digital easily meets or exceeds the technical quality level of 4x5 color film, but I myself still shoot 4x5 color film for simply the look and feel of the image as I see it. Yes I absolutely agree that the image "looks digital," though I've also seen some film scans become digital looking as well (I would bet that if that image I posted was shot identically with 4x5 Provia, the crop of the eye would be almost identical, highlights included, if not worse).

What I disagree with is the statement that "it would not meet your standard" for a high-quality color image. Really? Why not? Is it not that it aesthetically does not meet your standard?

I think the difference between the mediums is NOT a measurable and quantifiable resolution difference, but simply an aesthetic choice. And that's fine, but don't use the scapegoat of resolution to claim superiority.

[Bernice Loui]

It is very much a matter of my personal preference. Know my bias are a product of extremely high quality color Ciba prints, later Fuji made from color transparencies with nothing smaller than 5x7, from the very best color labs during the peak of the film era. Exposure and working at that level can and does fix one's expectations and standards for what is a high color print must be.

Since that time, I have completely stopped making any color images as much of the post process abilities to produce prints at what I'm biased towards is pretty much gone. The focus became traditional black and white film based prints since that time.

Does that image clip look digital? If yes, that is why I'm not convinced or sold or meets my "standards".

And no, this not about resolution/sharpness alone.. again.

Bernice





What I disagree with is the statement that "it would not meet your standard" for a high-quality color image. Really? Why not? Is it not that it aesthetically does not meet your standard?

I think the difference between the mediums is NOT a measurable and quantifiable resolution difference, but simply an aesthetic choice. And that's fine, but don't use the scapegoat of resolution to claim superiority.

[Corran]

And no, this not about resolution/sharpness alone.. again.

And I very much agree with you. I take umbrage more with others' tirade against digital with claims they can't back up regarding that resolution metric and nothing more.

[Jim collum]

anyone have a scan of a film eye at that size/resolution that doesn't look digital for comparison?

[Noah A]

Yes, you should believe that even old designs can perform spectacularly on newer digitals. Here's a snippet from what would equate to a 50x70 inch print, using a positively outdated Nikkor pre-AI 105mm f/2.5 (Double-Gauss), on my D800E. Oh and I think I was at f/2.8.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-77C5tEW06js/UUuQ_azZMKI/AAAAAAAADJ8/PimA9ZS4v3g/s1600/blahblahblah-2096.jpg

How do you come up with this? That file, when downloaded, is around 4x7 at 96 dpi. If I print it at actual size and let the epson printer upres it, it looks pixelated. And it only looks slightly better if I upres in photoshop. I'm not questioning the quality of your photo or even the sharpness of your lens, I also have a 105/2.5 and it's definitely one of the old designs that has held up in comparison to newer glass. But that file doesn't look like what a d800E print looks like at 50x70. If you download it and print it at actual size you'll see. Or upres it to, say, 240dpi, and you'll also see.

I switched back to film a few years ago because digital wasn't giving me what I wanted. I like to make large exhibition prints of very detailed urban landscapes. I tried the then-current small format (M9, D700) and medium format (P45+) kits and decided film was better for my needs.

On the issue of print size, I do sell more 20x24 prints than 40x50, but the latter size looks better in large exhibition spaces and that's really how I intend the work to be seen. No point in arguing about that one, it's really a personal artistic choice.

I'm getting involved in this thread against my better judgement. I really think anyone who cares enough to read this, and to buy $3000 cameras or spend thousands of dollars on film and processing each year should really do their own testing.

But, here goes. First attachment is an eye from drum-scanned Portra 160 scanned at 4000dpi on a Howtek HR8000. The scan is not sharpened, and frankly doesn't need much if any sharpening. The native size was something like 56x70in at 231dpi, so I upresed it a tiny amount in photoshop to 240 just to be fair, that's the minimum I like to print at for large prints, though I prefer 360dpi for smaller prints.

(I know, some prefer to let the printer or rip do the upsizing, and this isn't wrong. But for comparison you need to standardize on something. And a D800E file at 50x70 is around 105 dpi native, so the standard epson printer software can't upres that much without pixelation. Maybe some fancy rip can.)

Second one is D800E with a 50/1.4G at F/8. It's a sharp, modern lens and f/8 is just about its best aperture. This is a crop from a 50x70 file that was upresed to 240 dpi. It could benefit from some output sharpening but since the drum scan is unsharpened, I used only a tiny bit of sharpening during raw conversion.

For that photo I happen to have the same eye on film. Unfortunately my drum scanner is not set up right now, so this one is an Epson scan. Not ideal to be sure, but still interesting I think. Just keep in mind that the drum scan would be better. This was scanned at 6400dpi in vuescan and downresed to 56x70 at 240 dpi.

I didn't try to match the color, obviously, but the nikon has a warmth that is not really accurate, the model was very pale. I'm sure this could be fixed, but out of the box the film is closer. I didn't do much to the color of the Epson scan either.

I bought the D800E for jobs where digital was necessary, but a small part of me was hoping it could take over for my personal work too. While I love the look I get from film, and even the process of shooting with the view camera, traveling with film gear is a pain in the neck. I don't mind scanning but spotting is a huge tedious job. And film and processing are expensive. There aren't even any labs in my current city so I have to ship my film, which makes me nervous.

I'm waiting for a few more test photos to come back, this time of an urban scene. But it looks to me like the D800 is great and probably competitive up to 20x24. At that size you can't really see the film grain from Portra 160 without looking VERY close, so the results are more similar. But at larger sizes, the grain actually seems to increase the apparent sharpness.

I don't know what the point of all of this is, but I thought I'd share since this is something I've been thinking about lately. If any of you really are interested, I'd recommend sharpening and toning each of these to your taste and make a print. Screen comparisons are somewhat useless unless your final output is to the screen. And in that case, digital wins nearly every time.

Let's be honest, for most of us cost is an issue as well. Really the more you shoot, the more digital makes sense because of film and processing costs, and the fact that it stinks to have a few grand worth of digital gear not being used to its potential. Many of us have bought and paid for our film kits, which are relatively low-cost. If someone gave me an IQ180 with an Alpa and a set of Rodenstock digital lenses, I'd happily use it. But spending $50K or more on a kit doesn't make sense for me. I don't do ad jobs every day and it would never pay for itself. A D800E kit could make sense, since over it's useful life I'd spend more on film and processing than the cost of the kit.

But for artists or hobbyists who shoot 100 sheets a year, film is probably way more economical. As I think Mortensen was alluding to in his other thread, shooting film and drum scanning represents something of a sweet spot when you consider the cost and image quality.

[Corran]

Noah, it's pretty simple. I set the DPI of the file to 96 dots per inch, which is generally the resolution of most monitors. That gave the original D800E file, at 100%, a print size of about 50x70, as seen on the monitor. I then cropped a tiny part of that image to post here. Obviously, no image I could possibly post on this forum would be suitable for printing large because of the size limitations. I would be happy to send you the original file if you want.

Of course, printing to your printer at 300DPI, the original image could only be printed at about 16x24, but unlike film scans, at least in my opinion, a digital file can be uprezzed and properly post-processed to give a really nice print at much bigger sizes than the original would give. I would easily print that file up to 36x24, which is about the limit of my ability to print digitally.

So that image was merely a reference point.

[Thad Gerheim]

I haven't printed wider than 40 inches. There's only just so much space in my apartment. I've only done one image that size, but have printed it multiple times.

For presentation, my most common print size is 13x19 or 16x20.

As for what fits in a normal home, it's height that constrains the photograph, not length. For an average 8ft ceiling, a 30in tall print is going to take up half or better with framing. But a panorama will fit nicely. And a panorama, or a simply wide photograph, is very nice, enjoyable, and happily hangs in many places.

I think this sums up a lot of what is being dicussed here- being average and normal. Nikon's 800 has set a new standard for good for the average photographer making average size average prints. Now, for those who want to be better or different than average and normal...

[Drew Wiley]

A lot depends on your endpoint. If it's just how something looks on the web, well fine... but mine target happens to be a
print. Put an ordinary interesting 35mm in a halfway decent projector and it looks a helluva lot more impressive than anything
on a web monitor. But try an print it and it's a whole other ballgame. So if we're just looking at projected images, we haven't
made any progress in half a century, other than the ability to mess around in PS. Take med format projections ... even better.
Take hundred year old tricolor lantern slides, made just after the invention of pan film, project them like they did back then and probably nothing you can put on your damn screen with match them for color. Take that silly eyelash exercise of yours and make a big print like your number crunching tells you, and see what that looks like! Probably a ball of mush.
put in on the wall printed as big as you claim and see what it looks like.

[Noah A]

Noah, it's pretty simple. I set the DPI of the file to 96 dots per inch, which is generally the resolution of most monitors. That gave the original D800E file, at 100%, a print size of about 50x70, as seen on the monitor. I then cropped a tiny part of that image to post here. Obviously, no image I could possibly post on this forum would be suitable for printing large because of the size limitations. I would be happy to send you the original file if you want.

Of course, printing to your printer at 300DPI, the original image could only be printed at about 16x24, but unlike film scans, at least in my opinion, a digital file can be uprezzed and properly post-processed to give a really nice print at much bigger sizes than the original would give. I would easily print that file up to 36x24, which is about the limit of my ability to print digitally.

So that image was merely a reference point.

So we agree then. It's just that your post implied that the D800E looks like that crop in a 50x70 print. When I prepared my crops I sized them to 240dpi for printing and then cropped out a tiny section. One could print my samples, although they'd be quite small in print obviously, but they would represent a small section of a real 50x70 inch print.

I tend to find that if you view a file at around 50 percent in photoshop, that's a good representation of how it will print in terms of sharpness. So my crops actually look worse than a print would.

The reality, of course, is that not many of us print that large. But I do, sometimes, so it's not an abstract exercise for me.

[Noah A]

... Take that silly eyelash exercise of yours and make a big print like your number crunching tells you, and see what that looks like! Probably a ball of mush.
put in on the wall printed as big as you claim and see what it looks like.

Sorry if I added to this silly exercise, but I thought it might be helpful as not everyone has access to a D800E and a drum scanner and someone asked for a film eye ;).

But as I said in my post, Screen comparisons are somewhat useless unless your final output is to the screen.

That's why I'm staring at a whole stack of test print sections. Frankly, the crops I posted look better in print than at 100 percent on-screen. The drum scanned photo is damn sharp, although I probably wouldn't print the portrait at 50x70. That photo is currently in a traveling exhibition as a 45x36 inch print though and it looks amazing.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . I think the whole conversation is silly anyway.

Best post in the thread

[Brian C. Miller]

I think this sums up a lot of what is being dicussed here- being average and normal. Nikon's 800 has set a new standard for good for the average photographer making average size average prints. Now, for those who want to be better or different than average and normal...


Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: [to Igor] Now that brain that you gave me. Was it Hans Delbruck's?
Igor: [pause, then] No.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Ah! Very good. Would you mind telling me whose brain I DID put in?
Igor: Then you won't be angry?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: I will NOT be angry.
Igor: Abby someone.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: [pause, then] Abby someone. Abby who?
Igor: Abby... Normal.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: [pause, then] Abby Normal?
Igor: I'm almost sure that was the name.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: [chuckles, then] Are you saying that I put an abnormal brain into a seven and a half foot long, fifty-four inch wide GORILLA?
[grabs Igor and starts throttling him]
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Is that what you're telling me?

Brought to you by the Abby Normal Camera Company!

Corran: When you posted 50x70, I, too, thought that you had specified a print size, not a monitor size.

[Corran]

I think we are all confusing things. I was talking about a print size. That is a 100% crop from the file, which indeed equates to that print size when looking at a 96dpi monitor.

I wouldn't print at 96DPI, BUT, I have taken a file, uprezzed it 300%, used proper algorithms, and printed that. It looks about like what a 96DPI image looks like on my monitor. So for me, it is a valid comparison.

[Drew Wiley]

Well I could literally take a damn cell phone image and hand a disc to the outdoor advertising company three blocks away and they could post it on their twenty-foot-wide digital billboard and it would probably look every bit as good as a shot taken
with an 8x10 camera. Point proven. Of course, that would be from a "normal viewing distance" of two hundred yards. But in
the context of a large format forum per se, I don't think that is what most of us have in mind. If you get what you want, why
not? But it sure wouldn't work for me. That's not the kind of printing I'm interested in.

[C. D. Keth]

Whatever working method and format makes you happy and fits your work is what you should use. If you're not into large format, then it would be a shame to force yourself to carry all that weight.

[Drew Wiley]

Exactly. If that Nikon does what you like, just do it. But what on earth does it have to do with Large Format? I've got nuthin
against that camera. I'd buy my wife one if it was cheaper and if she was interested in digital herself, but she prefers 35mm
traditional snapshots rather than web posting. Show your shots on the damn appropriate Lounge thread too. But trying to
deliberately undermine the true potential of large format with this kind of chatter only proves that that is an arena you have
yet to master. It's like bullfighting against a gopher.

[Nathan Potter]

Yes, you should believe that even old designs can perform spectacularly on newer digitals. Here's a snippet from what would equate to a 50x70 inch print, using a positively outdated Nikkor pre-AI 105mm f/2.5 (Double-Gauss), on my D800E. Oh and I think I was at f/2.8.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-77C5tEW06js/UUuQ_azZMKI/AAAAAAAADJ8/PimA9ZS4v3g/s1600/blahblahblah-2096.jpg

Corran, this is rather useful as a quality check for the D800E. Using a section of a 50 X 70 inch equivalent print (46.6X) enlargement from the full frame format one can use the diameter of one of the eyelashes as a rough measure of linewidth.

I've reproduced your eye and added a µm scale referenced to the sensor width (35mm).
I measured the width of the lash (red square) on your original image and found it to be about 11µm (45lp/mm) which is consistent with my best D800E resolution along with a few others that I've studied. I think this would also equate to pretty good contrast but that really can't be judged from one line. Again I think this is pretty remarkable from a Bayer sensor which requires at least a 14 to 18µm set of pixels to establish a color and density. Some phenomenal demosaicing here.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8108/8580868002_6efd0c1570.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/argiolus/8580868002/)
CORRAN-70in. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/argiolus/8580868002/) by hypolimnas (http://www.flickr.com/people/argiolus/), on Flickr

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Corran]

Neat. I didn't know how to do all that lp/mm measurement stuff from a sample file, so thanks for chiming in.

[Jim collum]

i'm not sure how useful 50x70" print comparisons are. Given the number of prints we as a group produce, I'd guess that number printed at that size is pretty small. Comparing 20x24" prints (which would allow you to see 800E quality without obvious digital artifacts) would be better

[Brian C. Miller]

+1 on what works for you, use it.

Here's where threads like this become problematic: figuring out what can be replicated for analysis.

Once upon a time, everybody had relatively the same equipment, and it was essentially easy to replicate results. "From 40ft away, photograph a brick wall using a 4x5 camera, Tri-X, and 150mm lens. Enlarge that to 16x20." Then when someone said that a half-frame camera produced results just as good, it could be compared by just about everybody.

Now we have the realm of digital information, and things are now fungible which weren't regarded as such before. "From 40ft away, photograph a brick wall ..." and then everything else is changed, and people claim that one thing is replaceable with another.

A number of people have claimed that the Nikon D800 is the equivalent of a 4x5 at 16x20. Well, I've seen an Olympus Pen-E 12Mp look good at 17x22. That's 1/3 the pixels, and about 17% larger print. So is a 12Mp camera the equivalent of a 4x5? Or why bother purchasing the D800 when the Pen-E is just as good, by the same applied standard?

As for blown highlights and blocked-up shadows, that's a basic film-vs-digital comparison, not small vs large comparison. How does the material behave with clipping? How does it behave with shadows? I'd rather have a blown highlight on chrome than digital. I've seen photos from high-end 35mm DSLR cameras producing a magenta "shadow" when presented with a scene with the sun reflecting off of chrome or polished steel. Nasty. I've seen the results of subjects back-lit by the sun, and film just behaves better. Yes, the digital image can be cleaned up so it's not quite as bad, but that still takes post-processing time for each frame. (Data from Twin Lens Life, I think spring 2010 or 2011.)

[Leszek Vogt]

Well, too much depends on how much you embrace film or digital. I'm w/Chris on this. I happen to use both and have no issues with either....and both give me somewhat different results. If I was to compare anything to anything...I'd print whatever the size from both mediums...just like the test that was done (last Summer) between D800 and IQ180....40x60's. Anyone cares ?

I don't have a pony (or ass :D) in this race, I can crank 40x60 with my D700 (no, it's not chest thumping), but it's reasonably viewable at 2-3 feet (using ISO 800). Oh wait, I was using Vivitar 70-210/3.5 in macro, which currently could be picked up for mighty $25-50. It's silly, I don't even print at 20x30 (tho I could)....so it's moot for me to throw in all the hypothetical bs. I did print 16x20 from D700 and 300/4.5 (not the most current eq) and it came out v. nice & clean. Lot of it is technique. I believe the D800 versions are capable of more. Yet, taking b&w into account, I prefer the 4x5 or 5x7 look (I don't do 8x10). Sooo there.

Simply, these cameras should be looked individually....what they offer the shooter....and it's not about what the shots look like on the screen or post scanned. As an example, there is no way that I could possibly capture certain type of fast moving macro shots from a tripod (or LF), where I have to change ISO sometimes and handhold the camera.

My 2 centavos.

Les

[paulr]

I haven't printed wider than 40 inches. There's only just so much space in my apartment. I've only done one image that size, but have printed it multiple times.

By my calculations, it would take at least a 40Mp camera to give me what I want at that size. Based on the quality I want, it would be a MF camera, not 35mm. And from my view, that would absolutely be maxing out what 40Mp can do. Is a smaller size of that image good? In a print, yes. But it really comes into its own when it's at 40 inches wide.

This fits my observations pretty closely. A 40" print from my 36mpx 35mm camera looks surprisingly good at 40" wide, but this is the point at which the first evidence of imaging artifacts becomes visible—if you stick your nose in the print. Mainly what I see is the very beginnings of the "digital barbie doll" look ... where there are areas of smoothness where the eye expects detail.

Some people say this can be countered by adding noise, but I haven't figured out how to do that in a way that improves things.

I see more detail at this size from this camera than I do from a 4x5 darkroom print, but less than from a 4x5 digital print.

These comparisons are based on my (technically) best images, made with my best lens. Which is very good, but I'd like to repeat this if I get my hands on some of the state of the art optics being released soon.

[paulr]

As for optics design, not much has changed unless you're willing to accept the marketing hype and ... The laws of physics that govern how light and refractive optics has not changed. This does not mean lenses do not have their individual personality, it does mean they all are forced to abide by and obey the laws of physics and market economics.

I don't know where you get this. There has been more progress in optics in the last 20 years than in any other period in history, with the possible exception of the begining of the computer lens calculation era.

Take a look at Scheider's and Rodenstock's MTF curves for their latest generation medium format digital lenses, and compare to any of the lenses ever available for large format. They might as well be from different planets. The very best lenses for 35mm are beginning to approach this quality level.



A Cine Xenar Prime or Panavision Prime is going to out perform any mass production Nikkor/Canon/ etc.. lens as they should given Cine optics usually cost many times more than mass produced optics.

I don't know where you get this, either. Cinema lenses are optimized for completely different qualities than photo lenses. They do not compete well for photography (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout), at least not if resolution is one of your priorities.

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh... now you are showing your ignorance, Paul.... A true "high end" lens is something neither you nor I can ever afford. Everything you are familiar with is a market-priced compromise of some sort or another. And a lens which might be optimized
for very high-resolution digital use might require design compromises in other area, like a smaller image circle which equates
to less overall ability to control depth of field focus issues via swings and tilts. And you might give up some of that even more, once you have to stop things down way past ideal f-stops just to get a handle on things. You've gotta think of the
whole process.... not just some hypothetical number based on one set of parameters. In my profession there are lots of jokes about engineers or architects who can do anything on paper or computer, but whose actual building will be one of the
first to collapse in an earthquake. It has happened more often than you think. That is because they look at variables in isolation and do not understand that, in the real world, given materials are not equal to laboratory testing conditions. One
needs to look at the sum effect, which requires experience, not just theory. Or there may be other cases, like plastic hybrid
aspheric lenses, where you can do interesting things in toy camera design, but which will fail professional standards, mainly
due to the very different manner in which glass and plastic types respond (or don't respond) to humidity, and what the
performance expectations are in the long run. And maybe someone simply doesn't like the look or "bokeh" or whatever of a clinically sharp lens, yet still needs excellent color response. And frankly, I don't know what your affinity to large format is - now that you've convinced yourself that no one actually needs it. If "quality" is something you can simply plot on an MTF
chart, and is not something that hits you in the gut, in the Gestalt, than some kind of pulley is really slipping here...

[paulr]

Gosh... now you are showing your ignorance, Paul.... A true "high end" lens is something neither you nor I can ever afford.

Drew you just add noise to these discussions. Do I have to hold your hand and say "high end lenses for photography?" I'll call them that, for your benefit, and then stand by everything I said. The best contemporary lenses—available for photography—are better by a lot than any lenses that have previously been available for photography.

Tests show it, and the results by everyone who has compared both show it.

Yes, I agree, as I have many times before, some people value qualities unrelated to sharpness. I am very explicitely not talking about those other qualities. Nor have I ever said, or suggested, that there's no reason to use large format. But you'd have to actually read my posts to know that.

[Brassai]

I've been using a Nikon DSLR since 2005, but then returned to film in a big way 2+ years ago. There were two factors for me. First, I was getting tired of my shots having the same "digital" look as everyone elses, and second I was sort rebelling against the "latest hot camera" culture on the photo message boards. I started shooting 6x9 cameras from the 1930s and earlier, and even a c. 1904 Kodak Brownie 2. Then I began buying historical lenses and slapping them on my 4x5. I mostly only shoot b&w, and ISO 400 film as I like the harsher grain. All of this really opened my mind and I've since learned a lot about photography. For me, a good photo is about use of Light and the feeling captured. I am now confident I can do that with any camera from any age. I take along my new NIkon D7100 for color shots, a Leica IIIc & lenses or a 1951 Rolleiflex, and my Chamonix 045n and a few cool lenses like <1860 Petzval and 1914 Heliar. While I feel I can take a sharper color photo with the Nikon and my pro Nikon lenses, I also feel I can make more unique images with the really old stuff and b&w. For me, one camera format does not replace the other. "Sharpness" and "best" color is not my ultimate goal--I'm after something more elusive than that.

[Jody_S]

I've been using a Nikon DSLR since 2005, but then returned to film in a big way 2+ years ago. There were two factors for me. First, I was getting tired of my shots having the same "digital" look as everyone elses, and second I was sort rebelling against the "latest hot camera" culture on the photo message boards. I started shooting 6x9 cameras from the 1930s and earlier, and even a c. 1904 Kodak Brownie 2. Then I began buying historical lenses and slapping them on my 4x5. I mostly only shoot b&w, and ISO 400 film as I like the harsher grain. All of this really opened my mind and I've since learned a lot about photography. For me, a good photo is about use of Light and the feeling captured. I am now confident I can do that with any camera from any age. I take along my new NIkon D7100 for color shots, a Leica IIIc & lenses or a 1951 Rolleiflex, and my Chamonix 045n and a few cool lenses like <1860 Petzval and 1914 Heliar. While I feel I can take a sharper color photo with the Nikon and my pro Nikon lenses, I also feel I can make more unique images with the really old stuff and b&w. For me, one camera format does not replace the other. "Sharpness" and "best" color is not my ultimate goal--I'm after something more elusive than that.

So post some photos. And anyone who chooses that username is all right by me.

[Drew Wiley]

Back to lenses, Paul... there have been some minor tweaks in coatings recently, specifically by Nikon, and of course optical
engineers would like to keep their jobs by coming up with new ideas, just like everybody else in the R&D field. But there are
distinct reasons why certain aspects of commercial lens design reach a high point roughly twenty years ago and then have
had a struggle since. One significant factor is that there is probably today a much smaller selection of glass types available
to choose from. The driving factor to this is the demand in the EU and elsewhere to remove radioactive of otherwise toxic
formulas from the list, things which in fact contributed to some of our best glass types of the past. Another is the sheer time
and expense involved. Specialized glass is more like very slowly growing a crystal than pouring a sheet of window glass. A
lot of time (years) and committment in energy and facilities is involved. And this has to be market justified. The other factor
is end-user demand. Just how many pro lenses does a mfg want to contemplate when the market is already saturated with
excellent used ones? Then you've got a collapse in the necessary secondary components, like mechanical leaf shutters. And
yet one more element is the expectation of end users. If more and more commerical use is now dictated by web advertising
etc, just how much real quality does one need in the face of severe competition from the consumer electronics industry? I'd
be damn worried about my job if I was an optical engineer trying to improve commercial pro lenses, and not gravitating either
into hard industrial applications or mass-marketed consumer products. You might cite certain worthy improvements in MF
digital view lenses compared to true large format equivalents, but just how many of these are going to be sold worldwide?
It's a very small niche market. Or do you imagine there will ever again emerge something like the last generation of MC Kern
dagors, which had better color and contrast transmission than any Nikon lens ever (not equal detail)? Just to damn expensive
to make relative to the potential market.

[Drew Wiley]

Just the nature of current digital receptors causes serious design limitations, esp in wide-angle optics, due to fringing risk.
The net effect of this decreases to some degree as your capture surface gets larger. Size still matters, comparing apples to
apples. You'd be hard pressed to make a DLSR convert, quality-wise, with someone who has just invested in a serious MF
digital back, for example. Maybe the Foveon concept works a little better in this respect, but it's pretty limited in scope.
Probably Apo Nikkor (and certainly Apo El's = $$$) are better corrected than any current digital optic, and hence are coveted
for flat-field capture. And they're been around quite awhile, and are still the platform for high-end machine optics.

[Nathan Potter]

I don't know where you get this. There has been more progress in optics in the last 20 years than in any other period in history, with the possible exception of the begining of the computer lens calculation era.

Take a look at Scheider's and Rodenstock's MTF curves for their latest generation medium format digital lenses, and compare to any of the lenses ever available for large format. They might as well be from different planets. The very best lenses for 35mm are beginning to approach this quality level.




I don't know where you get this, either. Cinema lenses are optimized for completely different qualities than photo lenses. They do not compete well for photography (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout), at least not if resolution is one of your priorities.

There appears to be a disconnect between data from the "Great-50mm-Shootout" data and that from Photozone; both derived from Imatest results using digital capture. "Shootout" data is listed in LP/PH (well they call it IH) whereas Photozone shows LW/PH. There is a factor of two difference. Some of the best performance shown in "Shootout" indicates about 1000 LP/PH (2000LW/PH) whereas the best performance in the Photozone data shows close to 4000 LW/PH (2000 LP/PH. essentially for the same lens. The difference, converted to LP/mm, being 40 compared to 80 LP/mm. Well that difference seems suspicious to me.

A considerable body a test data from other sources indicates that some of these best 50 mm lenses deliver resolution in the 50 to 80 LP/mm range and are not limited to the 40 or so LP/mm shown in the "Shootout" data. I am inclined to trust the Photozone data more especially since a fair number of LF lenses easily exceed the maximum 40 LP/mm shown in the "Shootout" data.

I'd also point out that a few historic lenses manufactured in the 1970s' and 1980s' and tested years ago using a sophisticated setup by Modern Photography yielded resolution values close to 100 LP/mm. That of course was very few lenses and we know generally which ones they were. I think the gains in modern 35mm optics have been in better resolution across the full frame and certainly better contrast. The best current 35mm lenses are quite phenominal and can produce a clean Airy disk well under 10µm almost across the whole field.

Drew is kinda correct in that this thread is gravitating toward a digital discourse but for those of us who do both LF and digital for any number of reasons I think the comparisons are instructive. After all it was the question posed originally by the OP.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[paulr]

The evidence just contradicts what you say about lens quality, Drew. lenses have been improving more rapidly in the last 20 years than in the 20 previous ones. MF digital is where we saw the most impressive improvements, but now we're seeing similar gains in small format. The dozen or so best lenses made for small cameras are truly remarkable. And ones being released later this year, by Zeiss and Schneider, are promising to raise the bar even higher.

I don't know how small the market is for MF Digital. It would seem, though, based on releases by Schneider and Rodenstock, that this is where much of their future lies. We've seen two or three major generations of MF digital lenses in the time since either company has released a new design for large format.

[paulr]

There appears to be a disconnect between data from the "Great-50mm-Shootout" data and that from Photozone ...

The guy at lensrentals.com is using MTF50 data. He wanted a simple, single metric to compare lenses; that one's a reasonable choice.

Old fashioned resolution numbers (extinction resolution) don't say much about the real world sharpness of a lens. It wouldn't be uncommon for extinction resolution (usually around 10% MTF) to be double or so the MTF50.

[Nathan Potter]

Paul, I note that Photozone also uses MTF50 criteria. MTF50 is the standard for Imatest and I think the ISO standard for digital capture. Yes, I agree an MTF10 criteria could easily be double the resolution figures from the MTF50.

Using the Imatest software with an angled target should produce about the same results for similar pixel pitch. OTOH if the sensor pitch between the two were markedly different then the same spacial target will have a different fourier transform for an infinitely sharp edge. OTOH again, I have to think about whether there might be a convergence to the same limit of resolution by summing enough elements of the fourier series - that could be some of the difference between Photozone and "Shootout" if the number of series is different. I don't even know if there is a standard number of harmonics summed using the Imatest software.

Not to belabour this too much but now I'm curious. It is important to compare apples to apples in making analytical assessments.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Jody_S]

We really need a 'popcorn' smilie on this forum.

[paulr]

Not to belabour this too much but now I'm curious. It is important to compare apples to apples in making analytical assessments.

Of course. I just posted that page to show the apples:apples comparison of photo lenses and cine lenses. It's to debunk the longstanding myth that cine lenses must be higher resolution because they cost so much.

[Jim collum]

It would be an interesting study to do a Google search of 'most famous photographs' or 'most iconic photographs' (i know this leaves out a whole lot of very good imagery.. but looking at the images produced from those searches.. i know most of them as 'famous'). Take, say, the top 100 and research the MTF of the lens being used for those images and the max size they were printed.

My guess (just a gut), would be 11x14 and pretty crappy lenses by today's standards.

In this forum alone, I'd wager the 'best' images were taken with pretty lousy lenses (from an MTF perspective)

[Leszek Vogt]

Of course. I just posted that page to show the apples:apples comparison of photo lenses and cine lenses. It's to debunk the longstanding myth that cine lenses must be higher resolution because they cost so much.

Paul, how can you say apples to apples, when cine lenses don't even cover FF, much less LF ? Their special function is to squeeze as much info onto a film, so when it's played back (on large screens) the viewer is grasping the content of the film and not glass-resolution issues. So yes, resolution plays a huge role. Zeiss primes may cost over 6K each, but that's nothing when a zoom like Angenieux 25-250 would run $25K...and even that could be considered as "softer" by some. Panavision has some really fine lenses...and you can't buy them. I had a chance to look through their 14mm....massive front glass (rectangular, actually) and I was facing the sun....and there was no flare to be found anywhere. I'm wondering, have you seen WA glass that does not show flare in such configuration ?

These lenses are adaptable to smaller sensor cameras, but the economy of such glass (again, specific purpose) and the weight make most people run in the other direction. I should add that Angenieux did make some 35mm lenses (for still cameras) and one hardly ever see them (pretty rare) on the market or they cost 3-4X of conventional glass. If you look through 70's and 80's Popular/Modern Photography magazines, you should be able to spot them.

Les

[paulr]

Paul, how can you say apples to apples, when cine lenses don't even cover FF, much less LF ?

I think I understand what you're asking. I assumed he was normalizing his results, and presenting equivalent resolutions. But he doesn't say this explicitely, so I don't know. If that's not what he's doing, then apples to apples would require comparing to the other lenses on the crop frame camera.

In that case, who's going to put a $10,000 lens on a crop fram camera, when he's showing in no uncertain terms your results would be better with most ordinary lenses on any full frame camera? If no cine lenses even cover full frame I don't know why we're discussing them at all.


Their special function is to squeeze as much info onto a film, so when it's played back (on large screens) the viewer is grasping the content of the film and not glass-resolution issues. So yes, resolution plays a huge role.

Keep in mind that 4K digital cinema coresponds to only 8 megapixels per frame. MTF at at the highest spatial frequencies just isn't a requirement for these lenses, the way it is for people making moderate to large phogographic prints. Flare resistance, color rendering, out of focus rendering, freedom from focus shifting and focus breathing, silent operation ... yeah, that's what these lenses do really well.

[Kodachrome25]

I'm affraid it won't be long before I leave my treasured 4x5 at home on my trips to Yosemite. My digital has so much more resolution and sharpness that I don't see the need in lugging around 25-30 pounds of camera gear anymore.

Amen hallelujah, another lost soul saved by the shining light of digital, The Lord and Savior of millions of Flickr users the world over, how utterly original....not.

Got any work I can see, cause I just love these once I was lost but now I am found threads. I am headed to the Yosemite area too, what a co-inky-dink! But unlike you, I am leaving my D800 "Lord-Savior-Cam" at home and taking nothing but my lightweight 4x5, 20 holders, two 6x12 roll film backs and half my Hasselblad system. Once my big ski season shooting contracts are up in a few weeks, I get to hit the road with my wife who can work from anywhere and we might not go home until June, totally up to us.

So I'll take that awesome darkroom workshop with John Sexton in a few weeks and then head up to the Bay Area to see the inlaws and shoot a couple hundred sheets and rolls of film in a month or two and then get home and make some prints of which some I will sell.

You see bud, I have been using digital professionally for nearly 20 years, I just don't think it is my way forward anymore and I am already seeing my style come through much stronger shooting and printing film. So yeah man, leave your 4x5 at home and join the LEGIONS of Saved Souls who claim digital as the second coming....

You can have the crap, I don't need it and frankly, I don't come here to read about it.

Drew, PM me if you want to meet up!

[ImSoNegative]

Amen well said

[BrianShaw]

If I didn't want to read about this stuff I would have stopped on post #1 and move on to another thread. Intolerance is an uggly trait. :o

[Kodachrome25]

Intolerance is an uggly trait. :o

That sir, is entirely subjective.

Remember the movie the "Shawshank Redemption"? My former managing editor in 1994 when I first started using digital cameras full time is the son of the man who played the prison librarian. Along with handing us each a $14,000 1 megapixel brick, each staff photographer got a t-shirt that said "Digital or Die!" on the front.

Now, the irony is, he is no longer in the newspaper biz but is instead, the PR manager for the L.A. County Sheriff's department. I wrote him a few years ago to catch up and signed the letter with a quote from the movie...

"Get Busy live'n or Get Busy die'n".....

[Nathan Potter]

I don't understand why most cine lenses would not cover full frame. Cine film has historically been 35mm format. Maybe modern digital capture sensors are less than 24 X 36 so the most recent cine lenses designed are for the somewhat smaller sensors - don't know. But even then, as Paul points out, cine digital capture is dominated by the 8 MP sensors (and certainly HD 2 MP) which is a very loose requirement for a high resolution lens. I just can't see any compelling reason to use a very high resolution cine lens for the current average digital capture.

If I had to guess (I am) about the high cost of cine lenses I'd think it would have to do with the large apertures that are desired. IIRC the cost of a lens scales exponentially with the maximum aperture of the lens. Additionally they are made in limited quantities. Both factors lead to high costs.

If we limit ourselves to image quality there is a physical limit imposed on resolution/contrast over the visible spectrum for any lens. That is in the vicinity of 100 LP/mm. In fact any practical design will have an upper bound of around 80 LP/mm.
To get higher resolution one needs to limit the bandwidth of the light and go to shorter wavelengths as in the IC industry where UV light is pervasive.

The discussions here have sometimes focused on large prints, even 50 X 70 inch size. The reason for actually doing this (generally a small section is printed) is solely to examine detail for comparison purposes. Clearly, virtually no one on the forum actually prints at that scale, but microstructure and fine detail is important to many here. Seeing detail at say a 50X magnification is a tool for image optimization.

I think Jim Collum is correct about famous photographs. There is no correlation between a famous image and the "sharpness" of the lens used. The uniqueness of an image derives mainly from its' content. Likewise artistic merit seldom has much to do with lens resolution, however the original thesis of the OP does so the discussion has focused on that.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[BrianShaw]

... 1994 when I first started using digital cameras full time ...

Unlike you I don't use cameras full-time any more (never really did despite using cameras as a tool quite frequently), but I remember a decade before that using Sony BetaCams and Sony editting equipment at AFI (I was a part-time student of film-making to enhance knowledge for my full-time job at that time of producing training videos). It wasn't an easy transition but the technology really did allow for high-quality work in a faster and more efficient manner. From a business standpoint it was a great thing. From an emotional standpoint, I still like and use film. If I were to do today what I was doing back then... I probably would have difficulty chosing between the business efficiency aspects or the emotional aspects. But in the end I'm sure someone would chose one for me... and it might not be film. What shame, eh?

[tigger_six]

I don't understand why most cine lenses would not cover full frame. Cine film has historically been 35mm format.

Because 35mm is the width of the film strip including the perforations. The film rolls up-down as opposed to left-right for our 35mm cameras, therefore the actual image on the film is not more than (and usually less) than 24mm wide. For instance the super35 format, which is perhaps the largest (?) is only roughly 24x18mm, not 36x24.

[Brian C. Miller]

I don't understand why most cine lenses would not cover full frame. Cine film has historically been 35mm format.

Originally, 24mm x 18mm for cinema format, which is what "half-frame" uses. There are other cinema formats, including one that is, in fact, 24x36. Take a look at the various cinema formats, as that would account for some of the very high prices.

[paulr]

Amen hallelujah, another lost soul saved by the shining light of digital, The Lord and Savior of millions of Flickr users the world over, how utterly original....not.

You get my nomination for most embarrassing public hissy fit of 2013.

[Kodachrome25]

You get my nomination for most embarrassing public hissy fit of 2013.

Nah, no hissy fit, just having some lyrical fun with my opinion is all. If I ever decide to opt out of LF, I would spare people the self serving exit posts that one often sees here. It's just insane how badly the coming of age of digital has divided photography into one giant argument.

[Bernice Loui]

Over much of nothing..

Digital will not be the same as film, film will not be the same as digital. Accept them for what they are, tools for image making.

No amount of resolution, sharpness, print size ability and all that will make an expressive image on their own. That is very much dependent on the artist/image maker... Too many have fallen into the belief that sharpness, resolution and ... are the only things that matter and newer is always better.


Bernice





It's just insane how badly the coming of age of digital has divided photography into one giant argument.

[paulr]

It's just insane how badly the coming of age of digital has divided photography into one giant argument.

Indeed. I just don't understand projecting all those divisive ideas on the OP. He sounded wistful to me ... not like he was trying to prove anything.

[Bernice Loui]

There is nothing worth proving. To be a better artist/photographer focus on self-development and skill set rather than crowing about this is better than that or the latest and allegedly greatest techno-widget.

When the finished print arrives, it should be an expression of it's creator..


Bernice




Indeed. I just don't understand projecting all those divisinve ideas on the OP. He sounded wistful to me ... not like he was trying to prove anything.

[paulr]

There is nothing worth proving. To be a better artist/photographer focus on self-development and skill set rather than crowing about this is better than that or the latest and allegedly greatest techno-widget.
When the finished print arrives, it should be an expression of it's creator..

A noble sentiment.

But I have no idea what you're responding to. Certainly not to someone who says they found widget B to work better for them than widget A, and so they're switching, with some sense of remorse. Is that crowing?

[Bernice Loui]

Responding to all that verbiage over digital -vs- film, this lens is better than that one, this film is superior to that and.....

A talented artist can craft beauty and expression using pencil and charcoal and paper... give these identical tools to one who is less gifted and talented, what happens?



Bernice




A noble sentiment.

But I have no idea what you're responding to. Certainly not to someone who says they found widget B to work better for them than widget A, and so they're switching, with some sense of remorse. Is that crowing?

[Sal Santamaura]

...A talented artist can craft beauty and expression using pencil and charcoal and paper...Not everyone here is a talented artist. I've never claimed to be an artist; I am not and suffer no illusion about having the talent to become one.

The reason there are so many film/digital flame wars is because the membership is composed of both talented artists and non-artist photographers. Those in the latter camp tend to focus their energies on equipment/craft, leading to strong differences of opinion about which are "better/best." Such 'discussions' typically omit consideration of desired results, making them fruitless.

When talented artists present see those threads, they become frustrated because, possessing said talent, the sentiment so clearly stated by Bernice seems obvious to them. They cannot easily relate to members who aren't talented artists or don't strive to be. As in most other areas, lack of effective communication makes life difficult. In the immortal words of Rodney King, "can we all get along?" There's room here for equipment-centric as well as art-related threads. :)

[Brian C. Miller]

Responding to all that verbiage over digital -vs- film, this lens is better than that one, this film is superior to that and.....

There's a difference between, "I need a lens with more coverage for 75mm on 4x5, which is best?" and, "CANON SUCKS! LEICA RULZ!" Same with films and their curves, developers, yadda yadda yadda.

Certainly, creativity will trump the medium used. But when medium A is compared to medium B, especially for a specific parameter, then of course you get people making comparisons and questioning statements. "I'm going to augment oil painting with plastic painting, because the plastic gels are just as good as oil for five years, and I get a larger gamut than oil with just three tubes of gel, and I toss my stuff after a year, anyways. So I'm going to use oils just a few times, and use plastics gels the rest of the time."

Now, the parts that will set someone off are: "plastic gels are just as good as oil," and "I get a larger gamut than oil with just three tubes of gel."


A talented artist can craft beauty and expression using pencil and charcoal and paper... give these identical tools to one who is less gifted and talented, what happens?

A number of years ago there was a hubub in the UK fine arts circles because a lady entered an abstract painting in a competition and won. Two months later, she let it be known that it was her toddler daughter who had actually created the abstract painting. Up until that time, the lady had received many plaudits and accolades. The art community was in a huff because of the ruse, which was meant to show the emperor was stark frickin' nekkid.

So the OP is augmenting his LF photography with a digital camera. OK, fine. The concept that's debated is, can a 16x20 print from a small digital camera be just as good as a print optically derived from a 4x5 LF camera? I'm in the "no" camp, and I also say that a very good print at that size can be made using one of those cameras.

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm affraid it won't be long before I leave my treasured 4x5 at home on my trips to Yosemite. My digital has so much more resolution and sharpness that I don't see the need in lugging around 25-30 pounds of camera gear anymore...

On the bright side, maybe it's a good time to get into wet plate:

http://blog.hipstamatic.com/post/38403373776/tintype-snappak

[Drew Wiley]

... No problem, Rick ... just do whatever you feel is best ...

[rdenney]

There have been several complaints about this thread, and I've been sort-of following along on my iPhone for the last week while traveling and teaching. But, honestly, I just ignored it, not really knowing what to do with it, and hoping one of the other mods would decide something (they were, no doubt, doing the same). It's about an alternative to 4x5, which is relevant to all 4x5 photographers, of which I am one. But then it's about whether the alternative is as good as the original or not, which turns out to be quite a complicated topic not made less so by all the chest-beating about it.

With all due respect to the artists among us, saying that a technical discussion is a waste of time because it's all about art sounds like what one would say when the technical aspects move beyond their understanding. (I am not saying that has taken place; I'm saying what it sounds like.) I think all will agree that the technical issues are secondary to the production of good art. But art does not exist without craft, and craft is necessarily technical. So, technical discussions have merit, as long as they are based, like all technical discussions should be, on analysis and data rooted in expressed requirements. There is enough of that in this thread so that just deleting the whole thing would not be appropriate. But it would be better without those who are ardently non-technical throwing stones at the very idea of having a technical discussion.

Good art of the past was made with poor lenses by today's standards. Good art today is made with those same lenses. But if it was made using small format, print size is necessarily limited, usually to 8x10 or so. Much bigger prints must be truly compelling to overcome the loss of believability as people see baseball-sized grain and loss of detail as they move closer to the image. But because optical technology was limited as it was (either by design, manufacturing, cost relative to acceptable price, coatings--whatever), larger formats made better use of that performance for larger prints. So, for the 16x20 prints I like to make, I don't need the best lenses ever made on my 4x5 camera, or the best scanner ever made, or the best anything ever made, to get excellent results. But if I'm using a DSLR, I do indeed need truly outstanding lenses to achieve really good prints of that size. I can't afford them, or the camera that goes with them. I just don't want to spend that much money on camera stuff any more. I'm standing pat with what I have, for now.

Stated another way, if one insists on using small format, then the lenses one uses must be able to perform at amazing levels to allow those 20X and greater enlargement ratios. Bring your checkbook.

I'm sure that with a D800 ($3000) and three or four $2000 lenses, I could make very decent 16x20 prints. Or, I could get a Pentax 645D ($8000), for which I already have suitable lenses for 16x20 prints. Or, I could just use what I have now, while I can still carry it--6x7 and 4x5, even scanned in my home stuff. There is no doubt that I would make more photos if I was willing to pay for the digital stuff. But then I would miss tilts and shifts--forget much support for that on the Pentax and bring a fatter checkbook and even less focal length diversity for the Nikon--and I use those on nearly every shot, for reasons not so much having to do with "depth of field", but more with image management. My art may be lousy, but it's what I do and how I choose to express myself.

Fact is, there is no good digital solution for the 4x5 photographer that does not require serious compromises, even if the technical qualities were identical.

That said, digital allows turnover far beyond film, and much faster learning and experimentation. Does that improve one's art? Many would insist so.

I'm rambling just like everyone in this thread. The calculus is still complex and the variables too uncertain. That's why these threads devolve.

As moderators, nobody cares about the devolution. That's the way these conversations go, given there is no obvious answer. But, remember, this is just words on a forum. Five years from now, we'll know more and can have a better conversation about it. In the meantime, technical claims need analysis and data more than assertion, and nothiing here is important enough for people to get their feelings hurt, or to act as though they have. Art is not at stake.

Rick "reserving the comfy chair--for now" Denney

[Kodachrome25]

Not everyone here is a talented artist. I've never claimed to be an artist; I am not and suffer no illusion about having the talent to become one.

The reason there are so many film/digital flame wars is because the membership is composed of both talented artists and non-artist photographers. Those in the latter camp tend to focus their energies on equipment/craft, leading to strong differences of opinion about which are "better/best." Such 'discussions' typically omit consideration of desired results, making them fruitless.

When talented artists present see those threads, they become frustrated because, possessing said talent, the sentiment so clearly stated by Bernice seems obvious to them. They cannot easily relate to members who aren't talented artists or don't strive to be. As in most other areas, lack of effective communication makes life difficult. In the immortal words of Rodney King, "can we all get along?" There's room here for equipment-centric as well as art-related threads. :)

I think this pretty much sums it up, the dividing vehicle being the internet and it's delay in comparison to having a live conversation where emotions, facial expressions and what not can be directly experienced.

While there is room for both and really, this is a highly technical craft regardless of silver or 101010, even tech minded people are protective and eventually defensive of what they believe, not just us high goal artsy types. I think where things get heated is when there is overly provocative statements made like those that are absolutes that drop a big wet blanket over everyone in the room. The OP is kind of guilty of it, others are guilty of it and I am sure as heck guilty of it at times. I wish the OP luck and good light I suppose, but really, it was his exit strategy and statement as such that got a lot of the heat going...

I don't mind things being a bit edgy, more like a real conversation, but the nature of the internet and forums like these make it hard to do that, hence my getting pegged by mods a few times for not being more Polyanna-like...

Life and photography goes on...

[Drew Wiley]

I just thought it was Lounge material, so aka Ed Abbey, deliberately littered the highway

[Nathan Potter]

Rick, as usual, some very sensible comments. For me the thread has been useful because of the comments that are ancillary to the original theme. I think we glean stuff from such discussions bit by bit and in the end the craft part of our photography is enhanced. Bernice and others rightly stress the aesthetic elements of good images and I would agree that one may not need great technical background knowledge to make a fine artistic image. But a thorough knowledge of the equipment and processes can help a great deal in achieving success. As with any medium great art is often coupled with fine craft and fine craft is inevitably coupled to the equipment used.

I am reminded of the Northwest indian carvers, using a craft that was almost lost from intervention by the Canadian government in the early part of the 20th century. The formline aesthetic was recovered by just a few carvers and carried to new artistic heights by Bill Reid of Haida extract and a few others.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[paulr]

I'd like to point out that almost every week I see a thread or two declaring, "I tried digital for a couple of years, didn't like it, and now I'm finally coming back to LF film." Or something like that. Basically the same structure as the OP's post here, but it doesn't tend to raise anyone's ire, or launch any art-moralizing platitudes about great artists being able to use a cell phone cam or a burnt stick, etc. etc...

I see a lot of accusations of tribal thinking levied at people with different points of view. The unwritten claim is always, "my tribe would never behave like that."

Just sayin' ...

[John NYC]

What I find ridiculous is people who think using film somehow differentiates their work, as opposed to using digital. There is a whole history of the greatest photographers to date who used film. Just try and top them.

Great photos are made regardless of the tools, not because of them.

[paulr]

What I find ridiculous is people who think using film somehow differentiates their work, as opposed to using digital. There is a whole history of the greatest photographers to date who used film. Just try and top them.

As an aside, we might look at the people we call great and see which of them used the tools of their day, and which used the previous generation's tools. I bet we'd find both.

[sanking]

What I find ridiculous is people who think using film somehow differentiates their work, as opposed to using digital.

What is also ridiculous is that many of these people who believe they can differentiate their work by using film instead of digital don't have a clue about the craft of film photography. But it is a mentality that allows some to profit, including the really smart and wealthy folks who market "retro" type products such as multi-colored Holga camera and lomography film. Many of the people I meet today using film don't even know how to expose and develop it. I don't mean that they are not good at it, rather they don't have a clue how to expose and develop. Not for scanning, not for silver printing , not for alternative printing, just no clue.

As you say, great photographs are made because of personal vision, and an understanding of how to use the tools, whatever they may be.

Sandy

[welly]

Many of the people I meet today using film don't even know how to expose and develop it. I don't mean that they are not good at it, rather they don't have a clue how to expose and develop. Not for scanning, not for silver printing , not for alternative printing, just no clue.


There was a time when everyone on this forum was in the same position as those people (and I'm sure some would say I'm still in that position). I don't think they need bashing for their lack of knowledge but need encouraging and teaching.

[sanking]

There was a time when everyone on this forum was in the same position as those people (and I'm sure some would say I'm still in that position). I don't think they need bashing for their lack of knowledge but need encouraging and teaching.

My criticism is not of those who seek knowledge, but of the attitude that asserts that their "media" is better, when in fact they have no control of their media.

The logical conclusion of this is, why learn craft at all? Why would you learn to make real tintypes if you can simulate it with some type of hipster "retro" gear?

http://gear.hipstamatic.com/snappaks/pak_tintype

Sandy

[rdenney]

And even if you use software to simulate real tintypes, it takes some command of the process to achieve whatever artistic objectives one might have in simulating a tintype in the first place.

My beef with these is that the artist is claiming credit for the software's artistry, given that the artist exercises no control or decision over the software, other than simply choosing to use it.

Artists who have no concern with the technology of their medium sometimes make big mistakes. The painter Albert Ryder often covered slow-drying paints with fast-drying paints or varnishes, with the result that the surface cracked and the underlying paints bled through. That was certainly not his intentions, but I'll bet there are software simulations of the result somewhere. Yes, his artistry overcame that, but it would be nice if people could see the paintings today (or in many cases even while he was still alive) as they looked when he painted them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Flying_Dutchman%2C_the.jpg

Some, like this one, he might have tried to fix himself years after he painted it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/The_Forest_of_Arden.jpg

Compare these with, say, Rembrandt, whose paintings are a quarter-millenium older than Ryder's, and reflect the artist's original intentions far more closely, despite the effects of aging.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/The_Mill-1645_1648-Rembrandt_van_Rijn.jpg

Rembrandt, of course, was deeply concerned with craft, such that his technique has become a standard of learning for painters, even those who choose to go in much different aesthetic directions.

Rick "wondering if the hipster aesthetic extends beyond 'wow, that's cool.'" Denney

[BrianShaw]

Wow, that's cool... realllly kewl! :o

[BrianShaw]

p.s. In real life I'm the farthest (or is that, furthest) from being a hipster than almost anyone on the face of the earth. If my wife wasn't dressing me I'd likely wear wing-tips with my plaid Bermuda shorts. But I play a hipster on the internet! :D ( AKA :cool: )

[Bernice Loui]

Physics Professor Richard Feynman, winner of the Nobel prize in Physics for Feynman diagrams had no artistic training during his youth. One day while wandering on a beach he met an artist who was flying kite. This was the beginning of a long friendship where Physicist taught Artist physics and Artist taught Physicist Art (drawing). Both learned much from each other.

There is much that can be learned by strictly Art folks from the strictly Technical folks. Both have much to offer each other in so many ways if they listen to what each has to offer instead of reactively dig into their place of comfort.

For those who are curious about Richard Feynman's art...

http://www.museumsyndicate.com/artist.php?artist=380

Creativity and intellect can be expressed in many ways..


Bernice

[BrianShaw]

There is much that can be learned by strictly Art folks from the strictly Technical folks. Both have much to offer each other in so many ways if they listen to what each has to offer instead of reactively dig into their place of comfort.


Amen!

[John NYC]

My beef with these is that the artist is claiming credit for the software's artistry, given that the artist exercises no control or decision over the software, other than simply choosing to use it.

Rick "wondering if the hipster aesthetic extends beyond 'wow, that's cool.'" Denney

This lament by some has been hashed to DEATH as a concept in art culminating with ready mades... Many decades ago.

[Brian C. Miller]

And even if you use software to simulate real tintypes, it takes some command of the process to achieve whatever artistic objectives one might have in simulating a tintype in the first place.

My beef with these is that the artist is claiming credit for the software's artistry, given that the artist exercises no control or decision over the software, other than simply choosing to use it

.... (blah off on a tangent blah blah Albert Ryder blah blah Rembrandt blah blah) ...

Rick "wondering if the hipster aesthetic extends beyond 'wow, that's cool.'" Denney

The hipster cellphone artisté is using the equipment just as much as anybody using a digital camera which has a bunch of presets built into it. Image + filter = send to friends. Then the news media picks it up like it's the biggest thing evah. If there was a Cubist filter, they'd be using that, too. It's not about personal "vision," it's about adding a patina of originality on sharing the banality of their lives.

This past Sunday my landlord bought me dinner after I helped him with a couple of things. He photographed what he was eating, and sent it to his girlfriend. Technology enabling instant personal communication of the banal. Quentin Crisp, in The Naked Civil Servant (I have the record album), talked about literacy. Of course British and American children don't read. The first words they are taught are, "the cat sat on the mat." How droll and banal! However, in Argentina, the first words in the primer are, "I love Evita!" So of course the Argentinian children are inspired to read, because they are reading about someone who was petitioned for sainthood upon her death.

This morning I showed a couple of my coworkers the results of my 4x5 LF camera. I brought in a slide of the view outside the office kitchen window, which happens to include the Space Needle and Queen Anne neighborhood. They were awestruck. One said, "I have got to get one of these cameras for myself. I don't know what I'd do with it, but I've got to get one." Another said, "What's the point with all of the new cameras, when an old camera can do this? Is the color supposed to be better?"

People don't see excellence, so they don't know that it exists, so they don't strive for it.

[Chris Strobel]

I'm affraid it won't be long before I leave my treasured 4x5 at home on my trips to Yosemite. My digital has so much more resolution and sharpness that I don't see the need in lugging around 25-30 pounds of camera gear anymore.When I make 16x20's from my digital files there every bit as good if not better than my 4x5 negs.I'm going to Yosemite in May and will bring my 4x5 but I'm only bringing aroung 6-7 holders instead of my usual 12-15 holders.It's sad but it's the new reality.I'll miss composing the image on the ground glass and setting the fstop,shutter speed and I miss pressing the cable release.About the only thing I won't miss is people asking me "what kind of camera is that".I wonder if the digital age was around in the mid fifties would Ansel Adams had left his 8x10 at home?

Why even bother bringing a dslr to Yosemite, an iPhone and a few stitches and you've exceeded the sharpness and resolution of your T1i :)

[Drew Wiley]

I just get annoyed when some new media or technique is artisfied simply due to its novelty. Like back when Cibachrome was
first put on the market, everybody starting shooting subjects with bright red in them because of the way red looked on the
paper. I don't think I every printed more than three images in my entire life with a dominant red, and at one time, even
refused to participate in a group show because it was media-themed. Nowadays the digtal gadgetry itself is being promoted
as an artistic novelty, and cute tricks which are very trendy at the moment will inevitably look very passe once some new
tweak arrives. It's adolescent self-consciousness, artistically. But at the same time, there are people who have some maturity to their vision to understand that tools are just tools, and understand the importance of restraint, and don't go hog
wild every time some new toy turns up on the market.

[BrianShaw]

I get annoyed when some new media or technique is villified simply due to its novelty.

[John Kasaian]

I just get annoyed.:rolleyes:

[BrianShaw]

Ya, me too. Then someone kicks me in the gut and tells me I'm a bore so I reform... for a short while. :)

[Drew Wiley]

I enjoy villifying novelty. Keeps threads like this going long after they deserve to be quiety laid to rest in a pine box (or fluorescent digitally imprinted foil caskets, for those of you who worship techie stuff). Reminds of those flatlander deer hunters who showed up in the woods exactly once a year with their mandatory bottle of bourbon and some shiny expensive
new rifle. The deer were fairly safe, but they did manage to shoot someoneone's pasture bull, or shoot themselves in the
foot once in awhile. I do just the opposite, and head out on the trail with a 1960's pack and a Ries tripod. Maybe I'll have time to replace the wooden shaft on my ancient ice axe (though I'd carry fiberglass for any serious glacier travel - there's a
reason that ole thing broke!). Give me the sounds of owls and coyotes and running water, and leave your stinkin' electronic
toys at home! Those things should be banned from wilderness areas just like motorcylces, chainsaws, and damned strip malls.

[paulr]

Every technique used by everyone here was new once. Some artists jumped on the new thing, others adopted it slowly, others never did. I see good work being made by members of all groups.

To attach some kind of moral or esthetic superiority to those who shun new techniques ... it's just a historically ignorant form of self indulgence.

Show me an uninteresting flickr picture and I'll show you an unintersting 8x10 contact print. We could go on all day for years. I'd rather look at the good stuff, and being familiar with the old good stuff, I'll spend my time looking for the new good stuff. Regardless of the tool used to make it.

92071

[sanking]

http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/on_process/

Relates to my previous message on simulated tintypes.

Sad commentary on the state of affairs when art is only valued by what we see on a screen via the web. If we really buy into this we would have to give up making real things and just experience them via our monitors.

Sandy

[BrianShaw]

I enjoy villifying novelty. Keeps threads like this going long after they deserve to be quiety laid to rest in a pine box (or fluorescent digitally imprinted foil caskets, for those of you who worship techie stuff). Reminds of those flatlander deer hunters who showed up in the woods exactly once a year with their mandatory bottle of bourbon and some shiny expensive
new rifle. The deer were fairly safe, but they did manage to shoot someoneone's pasture bull, or shoot themselves in the
foot once in awhile. I do just the opposite, and head out on the trail with a 1960's pack and a Ries tripod. Maybe I'll have time to replace the wooden shaft on my ancient ice axe (though I'd carry fiberglass for any serious glacier travel - there's a
reason that ole thing broke!). Give me the sounds of owls and coyotes and running water, and leave your stinkin' electronic
toys at home! Those things should be banned from wilderness areas just like motorcylces, chainsaws, and damned strip malls.

... so you don't like bourbon???

[Drew Wiley]

The web is great for family snapshots, and chit-chat, business transactions etc. But I despise it for any kind of serious visual
communication, and as soon as I even care enough, I'm gonna pull all my own specific images from it, despite having used deliberately dumbed-down the jpegs so nobody would confuse the web content with what a real print is supposed to look like. Maybe some kind of other content. It's an era of increasing visual illiteracy, as far as I'm concerned.

[E. von Hoegh]

I get annoyed when some new media or technique is villified simply due to its novelty.

I get annoyed when some new medium or technique is hailed as the be-all and end-all simply due to it's novelty.

3-D movies still suck, too, just like they did in the 50's.

[BrianShaw]

3-D movies still suck, too, just like they did in the 50's.

Just wait, the next version/iteration/release will be better (that's the thought process I hate!)

[John NYC]

Now get off my lawn!!!

Yawn.

[Drew Wiley]

The fellow down the hall from my office has a big sign stating, No cell phones. Then up on the wall he's mounted an old civil
war sword somehow stabbled through a whole string of cell phones, shishkabob -style. Now that's what I call progress!

[E. von Hoegh]

The fellow down the hall from my office has a big sign stating, No cell phones. Then up on the wall he's mounted an old civil
war sword somehow stabbled through a whole string of cell phones, shishkabob -style. Now that's what I call progress!

Do you know, if you hold the head of a big potato masher electronic flash next to a cellphone and pop it, the phone dies? :):):)

[paulr]

I get annoyed when some new medium or technique is hailed as the be-all and end-all simply due to it's novelty.

3-D movies still suck, too, just like they did in the 50's.

If it's something that hasn't changed significantly in over half a century, how is it we're talking about novelty, and not just an old thing you don't happen to like?

[Mark Sawyer]

3-D movies still suck, too, just like they did in the 50's.

I went to a live play a while back, and it was in 3-D too. I guess technology is ruining everything. But I have to admit, it was pretty realistic...

[Leszek Vogt]

John Kasaian

I just get annoyed.:rolleyes:


Yes, it's v. easy to be annoyed when the imecon doesn't really roll its eyes.

Les

[Steve Smith]

I enjoy villifying novelty.

I used to like to do that but the novelty has worn off now.


Steve.

[paulr]

Wim Wenders' movie about Pina Bausch was one of the best movies I saw last year.
To be fair, I'm not convinced I would have missed much seeing it in 2D.
But Wenders thought it was important.

[rdenney]

Every technique used by everyone here was new once. Some artists jumped on the new thing, others adopted it slowly, others never did. I see good work being made by members of all groups.

To attach some kind of moral or esthetic superiority to those who shun new techniques ... it's just a historically ignorant form of self indulgence.

Show me an uninteresting flickr picture and I'll show you an unintersting 8x10 contact print. We could go on all day for years. I'd rather look at the good stuff, and being familiar with the old good stuff, I'll spend my time looking for the new good stuff. Regardless of the tool used to make it.

92071

Yes, it's the art that proves the technique.

But that wasn't the point I was making. I was stating that bad art was being given a pastiche of simulated ancient technique in the hopes of making it good art. The fact that the ancient technique in its unsimulated form was also used to make bad art is a different thread.

Rick "vinyl with leather grain molded in it is still vinyl--but vinyl when used for what it is can actually be useful" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Real art was made back when real men hunted mastodons with spiked-foot Ries tripods and ate the meat raw.

[Brian C. Miller]

Yes, it's the art that proves the technique.

Rick "whatever art is" Denney

I went and looked that up. Painting on canvas became popular in the 15th century, and previously they painted on wood panels. Canvas did to wood panels what digital has done to film. Not a change in style, but a change in the technology used to present the idea.

The essential style of photography didn't change between film and digital, and neither did the style of painting change between panels and canvas.

[E. von Hoegh]

If it's something that hasn't changed significantly in over half a century, how is it we're talking about novelty, and not just an old thing you don't happen to like?

Because 3-D has recently been reintroduced, presented as new and wonderful with all the old problems solved... it isn't and they aren't.

[E. von Hoegh]

Rick "vinyl with leather grain molded in it is still vinyl--but vinyl when used for what it is can actually be useful" Denney

Nope. It's "pleather", a new and wonderful thing! Real vinyl comes in thin discs with a groove on each side. (winking smiley)

[Tony Evans]

We are taught that children should never be called idiots despite their behaviour, rather should be told that they are not an idiot but that they are acting like one. Here we have 234 posts from normally respected members, who are all acting like idiots. A man wants to take his DSLR to Yosimite along with his LF. Who the FK cares!

[BrianShaw]

Correction, my fine fellow: 235.

[E. von Hoegh]

We are taught that children should never be called idiots despite their behaviour, rather should be told that they are not an idiot but that they are acting like one. Here we have 234 posts from normally respected members, who are all acting like idiots. A man wants to take his DSLR to Yosimite along with his LF. Who the FK cares!

We, or at least I, don't. What's at issue is the assertion that his DSLR is capable of "so much more sharpness and resolution".

[Drew Wiley]

He has every right to drag his DLSR to Yos, just like millions of other tourists, along with a predictable number of view camera users who all seem as if they unpacked the thing for the very first time. But does everyone thereby have the right to drag their DLSR's all thru a discussion forum allegedly dedicated to large format photography? I really don't care
if it's film versus digital or pixels versus dye clouds, but no way in hell a DLSR can be called "large". I wouldn't even mind owning one for certain applications, but I would prefer to hypothetically discuss that kind of thing somewhere else, so it doesn't clutter everything here. That of course, is an option for the moderators and not me to decide. I'm just a guest -
but one who will continue to throw jello and spaghetti all over the lunchroom as a token childish tantrum in the meantime.

[paulr]

That of course, is an option for the moderators and not me to decide. I'm just a guest -
but one who will continue to throw jello and spaghetti all over the lunchroom as a token childish tantrum in the meantime.

Evidently.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm just getting real grumpy trying to crawl over and through all these damn gadgets to get anything anymore. My RA dev looked old, so thought I'd fill in a little from the local camera store, which usually keeps a few kits on hand for me. There's
a "Sale Today" sign on the door and I think, Oh,Oh. I ask the new kid at the counter for an Ra-4 kit and he gives me a dumb
look. So I walk around the corner to the darkroom supplies section (and they still have one), but there's a automated printing
machine kit there for 4x6 digi-prints and a crowd hanging around it complaining how these new prints don't look the way they "used to", and some poor student wiggles out of the constricted door to the rental darkroom with a tray of wet prints in her hand and stumbles over the damn thing. One more digi intrusion into the world, and it takes me awhile to find someone to run down to the basement to look for a kit. Eventually I give up and call Freestyle. All this toy camera stuff is like the little Voodoo doll "Chuckie" that just follows you everywhere and won't leave you alone. I perfectly happy if it flourishes in its own little macabre world - but it sure would be nice to have some elbow room for something besides that!

[Nathan Potter]

Drew, I think you are exhausted; mentally that is. Take a good break, gather up some fine LF gear, get out and do some real photography. It's the best therapy for the strained mind.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[thomasfallon]

Real art was made back when real men hunted mastodons with spiked-foot Ries tripods and ate the meat raw.

Spiked-foot Ries tripods with Chinese cameras and the last vestiges of expired film frozen in the ice age. I don't care if the op wants to shoot with his digital Rebel and claim better images. Let's just all post them up.

[Kodachrome25]

I'm reporting this thread to the Humane Society....the way you guys are treating these dead horses is appalling...:rolleyes:

[John NYC]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=1002079#post1002079

It just keeps being more and more funny every time I watch it.

[welly]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=1002079#post1002079

It just keeps being more and more funny every time I watch it.

Amazing, first time I've seen that. I'm going to go and watch it again.

[Bernice Loui]

Ode on a Flower...
-Richard Feynman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28




:)
Bernice

[Leszek Vogt]

Alrightie, I got the popcorn....

Les

[Brian C. Miller]

Thread hijack!

While you guys were yapping, I just got some film back from Praus.

Outside my work kitchen window. I showed this slide to my coworkers. My, what an amazed crowd! You can count the branches on the trees on the skyline, and almost count the stars on the flag. You can see the flag on the Space Needle, can't you? Huh? Huh?
Toyo 45AX, Nikkor 210, Fuji 64T
92115

This is from the Lakeview Blvd ramp in Seattle. It comes up from street level, crosses above I5, and goes to Capitol Hill. At this point, it's well over 50ft, maybe 75ft, from ground level. The view is gorgeous.
The note reads, "My Dear young Fellow may your soul rest in peace Eleen"
Graflex Super Graphic, Wollensak 135mm Optar, Fuji 64T, with movements
92116

[Greg Miller]

People don't see excellence, so they don't know that it exists, so they don't strive for it.

What drove me to digital printing for my color work was utter disappointment with the wet color prints that I had made in the past. I used several highly regarded printers in NYC (including Ciba printers) and was always disappointed with how little the print matched the transparency. With digital printing, I could control the entire process, and I could also end up with a print that matched my vision. Digital printing isn't perfect (nor is any printing process) but for me the prints I can achieve far surpass any other printing process that I have tried. Part of that is the printing technology and part is my ability to optimize the image for printing with Photoshop (I can make a test print, then make local or global changes in hue, saturation, and luminosity and make another print) - the end result is what I want the print to be). What I see in my digital prints is excellence that I had not seen with traditional methods of printing.

If others can achieve that with other printing processes, then I think that is great and I am happy for them. This is what works for me, and what others do will not detract from that.

[ki6mf]

I shoot 4X5 B&W film. Some of the EXPENSIVE digital high end gear can do wonders provided you know what your are doing. A semi pro friend of mine shoots lots of motorcycle shows-once remarked to me that he shoots 2-3000 images works in post hours in post to find the few he wants to spend 5 hours in post per image for a dramatic image while,his words not mine, you shoot one image at a time and spend 5 hours to get one dramatic image . Comes down to knowing how to get the most out of your gear and process.

[timparkin]

All it takes is a glance at his setup to make it apparent it was a hokey non-objective test, that essentially tells one nothing
except that doofey technique is capable of less than ideal results.


Per that Tim Parkin thing - you can prove anything with that kind of sloppy handicapping. Maybe both sides of the test were
half-assed. I don't have time right now to point out all the nonsense. He's got an 8x10 propped up on a twerpy little ballhead
that can't control shutter vibrations worth a damn. The film was probably sagging in the holder. Poor technique from the word
go....

Hi Drew,

Just wanted to point out that for someone who supposedly read the test you didn't know the film was taped and two tripods are used. p.s. that twerpy ball head created resolution beyond the capability of the film to record as tested using Adox CMS20.

I personally think it's particularly cowardly to criticise a test in such insulting words without being able to articulate what it is you are talking about.

So here is a public challenge - you point out and prove why the test was a 'hokey non-objective test' with 'doofey technique' and I'll take on board your comments and retest to show you how wrong you are?

How's that? Personally I think you're all mouth and no trousers but I look forward to being educated otherwise...

Tim Parkin

[Renato Tonelli]

A full month to the day since the OP (26 pages of replies!) - did you come back from Yosemite? How did it go? Are you in Yosemite? How is it going?
I hope it all turns out well for you, regardless of what gear you take along. A friend of mine, who often tags along on my photo excursions, uses the iPhone exclusively - beautiful images! I prefer my 4x5; go figure...