Large format vs MFDB

[don mills]

Hello All:

Are there any technical or aesthetic advantages to using 8x10 film instead of MFDB for big prints? I shoot primarily forrest scenes using a great lens (Fine Art XXL 550) on my 8x10. The quality and feel in 40x50 inch (from 8x10) is nice, particularly with Fujichrome Provia.

My issue is that the cost of color film and high quality drum scans are killing me (~15 shots per week). But are there users of MFDB who are able to get the same creamy & 3D-esque quality (as 8x1o) in the end prints with MFDB?

I would very much appreciate any feedback from users who have made their own comparisons (in either 4x5 or 8x10) with MFDB. Pointers to articles discussing this as well.

Thank you all.

Don Mills, NYC

[Wallace_Billingham]

Most of the commercial shooters have switched to MFDB because it is much faster and clients want digital files and want them yesterday

[Archphoto]

8x10 and MFDB are appels and pears, forgive me.

When shooting the same subject from the same distance you will need a longer lens with the 8x10 compared to MFDB and with all its concequenses.
You will need to enlarge your 8x10 negs less than a file from a MFDB to get the same print-size.
Both have effect on the "feel" of the final photo.

Many, many years ago I did some testing between 6x7cm (Pentax) and 4x5" and at the same print-size, even an 8x10 I could see the diferences.
When you are used to 8x10 you are spoiled rotten..... arn't we lucky ?!

Whether 8x10 or MFDB is comercialy viable is something diferent, clients tend to look at their pockets/wallets first and then look at the technical quality of photo and the time involved and than decide for the cheapest and fastest options they have.

Peter

[Eric Leppanen]

Have you seen the write-up's on this subject (from a 4x5 shooter's perspective) by Joseph Holmes?

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

His overall conclusion (based on the current state of the technology) is:

The first thing view camera users usually want to know is: Will it match the sheer detail that I can get from my 4x5 sheet film? The answer is an inordinately complicated one. Sometimes, yes, and then some. Sometimes no.

The users of 39MP backs that I have spoken to say that, for landscape subjects, the backs hold their own against 4x5 film until print sizes exceed 24x30 or so. I haven't spoken to anyone with a P65+ but reviews on the web so far seem to suggest a tonality improvement versus 39MP backs but no noticeable resolution improvement. This of course may change as mechanical tolerances, quality control, etc. improves.

Of course there is always stitching but that limits your choice of subjects.

Since you shoot 8x10 color (as I do), you obviously require more than 4x5 quality, which would seem to make MFDB's problematic. Have you considered contacting a MFDB dealer and arranging for a "shoot out" between your 8x10 and a MFDB, using the subject matter of your choice? I understand dealers cooperate with such tests fairly regularly.

[MIke Sherck]

Undoubtedly a stupid question, but what does 'MFDB' stand for? A quick check of the abbreviation dictionary suggested: Maintenance Free Dehydrating Breather , Memory Form Definition Block, Movimento Famiglie Don Bosco, Matt Fowler Dot Business, or Mineral Formula Data Base.

Mike

[Archphoto]

As I translated: Medium Format Digital Back, considering Hasselblad (MF) and Digital...

Peter

[Robert Fisher]

MFDB of any resolution CAN NOT DUPLICATE the luxury of movements offered by LF.

IMHO that is s BIG negative.

[Sylvester Graham]

MFDB of any resolution CAN NOT DUPLICATE the luxury of movements offered by LF..

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26309


And I think there aren't really any problems getting a "medium format" digital back onto a view camera, like a 6x9. Same thing, faster, better, easier.

[Drew Wiley]

Eric - size matters. If you are making big prints and want them truly detailed there's
just no substitute for 8x10 film in the field. But it all depends on your end result. Joe
Holmes is a friend of mine and a couple of months ago we had quite a discussion about
this. He's quite a technophile and knows his stuff, but so do I, so we always have
productive conversations. He was talking about getting an Arca MF system with some
kind of precision panning base and stitiching in order to get 8x10 quality. But this was
all hypothetical techo-talk. I doubt he'll actually do it. If you're an architectural or
product photographer it might make sense. But in the field? I added up the weight of
the necessary components to do this correctly, and it was actually quite a bit more
than my typical view camera load in the high Sierra (which is a type of photography
we have in common), the cost of gearing up would be obscene, and you really need
somewhat stationary subjects to get a stitiched image. Not to mention all the
persepective problems, battery-dependence,etc. But there are people who are going
to do this. The fact is, a digital print can only accept so much detail, and it's difficult
to justify 8x10 for a 30x40 inkjet when a 4x5 (or perhaps someday DMF) will suffice.
A 30x40 Cibachrome, however, will certainly separate the men from the boys. I
personally like highly detailed true optical prints. The big ground glass also allows more precise focus and often cultivates a more thoughtful way of looking at things. But I'm not going to get into culture wars about digital vs film. To each his own.

[Chris Strobel]

Eric - size matters. If you are making big prints and want them truly detailed there's just no substitute for 8x10 film in the field.

Or an old aps-c dslr, telephoto, and cheap panonhead :D

http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/GlacierPointZoomify.htm

[Mark Sawyer]

My thought is that the film will capture a much wider dynamic range than the digital back.

Another thought is that whatever advantages film has over today's digital backs, it may not have a year from now.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I'd certainly like to see anyone on the planet take the kind of pictures I take with
ANY kind of digital gear! Sure you'e got these static panoramas etc. And I apparently have a very different interpretation of what a print is supposed to look like than some
people do. Fine. No issue. Enjoy the gear of your preference by all means. But just take one of your state of the art inkjets with from a twenty bizillion megapimple back and hold it next to a Carlton Watkins 120-year old print of Yosemite made from an 18X22 glass plate and a primitive lens - guess which image will be fuzzy by comparison!

[Chris Strobel]

guess which image will be fuzzy by comparison!

Ehh.......the Watkins?

http://www.maxlyons.net/images/web/print_image03.jpg

[Peter K]

My thought is that the film will capture a much wider dynamic range than the digital back.
It's a great pity but the dynamic range of digital back is much wider and the tone reproduction curve is no curve anymore but a straight line. :mad:

Peter

[Drew Wiley]

Chris - the proofs in the pudding. Show me a digital print anywhere on earth which
matches the detail of something like a Ciba or even C-print done optically from an
8x10 original. I know some of the best digital printers alive and they neither can do it,
nor do they claim to be able. What on earth are some of you people even doing on
this forum? I'm not knocking the technology but simply pointing out a few of the pros
and cons. When it comes to detail on large prints, there's no comparison, let alone
with a contact print. There are only so many ways to print digitally, and NONE of them
are sharp BY COMPARISON. Or maybe you're just one of those folks who think enlargement is typcially done with a Verito lens smeared with vaseline!

[Drew Wiley]

Just to rub it in a little more - you've got a downloaded image of some dude looking at
a spliced print of a stationary indoor subject with about a 2x magnifier. When I focus a 4ft wide print from an 8x10 on the enlarger easel with a 10x critical maginifier, let se ... uh, that's equivalent to a print forty feet across. Now lets assume I wanted to
splice together something from several 8x10, digital or otherwise ...duh! This whole
line of jabber reminds me of back when Kodak marketed TechPan with an ad which
stated, "4x5 quality in 35mm". Remember that? The only problem is that they marketed the same film in 4x5 and even 8x10, so where did that leave things? Duh!
Size matters!

[sanking]

It's a great pity but the dynamic range of digital back is much wider and the tone reproduction curve is no curve anymore but a straight line. :mad:

Peter

Peter,

Compared to what film?

It is hard for me to understand how the dynamic range of a digital back could be wider, without HDR of course, than that of B&W film.

The question would be, is the dynamic range of one shot MFDB even as wide as that of color negative film?


Sandy King

[Mark Sawyer]

It's a great pity but the dynamic range of digital back is much wider and the tone reproduction curve is no curve anymore but a straight line. :mad:

Peter


Peter,

Compared to what film?

It is hard for me to understand how the dynamic range of a digital back could be wider, without HDR of course, than that of B&W film.

The question would be, is the dynamic range of one shot digital even greater than color negative film?


Sandy King

I'm curious too, Peter. I don't know of any digital camera that will match the dynamic range of a film negative, although the technology is progressing and it may be there without my knowing it yet.

Today's trivia: the first "HDR" images date from the 1850's when Gustave Le Gray made separate exposures for land- and sky-areas, then combined the images in the printing process.

[Chris Strobel]

Drew, as an anniversary gift, my wife bought me a 30"x40" image by Christopher Burkett titled Cherokee Autumn Forest.Its from an 8x10 chrome, hand printed by himself using a b&w contrast mask on Cibachrome.Truly an outstanding image with great depth, clarity, and tonal separation.I consider Burkett to be one of the best traditional color printers alive today.Now when I was at PMA a couple years ago I got to see some prints by a guy named Max Lyons http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/, the guy with the magnifying glass.They were digital C prints much larger than my Burkett print with equal depth, clarity, and tonal separation.However they were shot with consumer grade canon dslr's with a home made pano head.Last year at the Ansel Adams gallery I saw some large prints by Michael Frye and thought I was looking at his LF work only to realize some months later they were shot with a Canon 1DSmkII dslr.Look, isn't this a bit subjective here?I mean I've seen Watkin's work in person and don't like it.Ansels Monolith I like.Edward Weston...ehh, Brett Weston I love, etc.etc.Oh and the reason I'm here, I own and use an 8x10 view camera as well as some digital stuff.here is my little stable.

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/115544956/original.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

Sandy - you're no doubt aware of a few folks recently who are refubishing old 5x7
three-shot cameras and putting T-Max in them. Talk about dynamic range! Of course,
here's where your hybrid technology really shines by allowing a much easier realignment of the three distinct separation negatives.

[Drew Wiley]

Chris, sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm an old hillbilly and have to have a little fun with
this! I can print on a level with Chris Burkett any day of the week, but just wish I
had a little more time to do it! The most impressive digital stitch I ever saw was
assembled as a showpiece by NASA - black and white laser-printed of the backside of
the moon, about 20 ft wide -at a cost of about 40K! A bit out of my league! The point
I was simply making is that neither Lightjet, Lambda, Chromira, and certainly not inkjet
are capable of this kind of great resolution. What a person likes and how they choose to do it are completely different subjects. Maybe when I'm too old to carry an 8x10 I'll end up with a DLSR, or more likely just the Nikon and be making smaller prints. But by then the technology will have shifted anyway. But I'll never live long enough to print all my 8X10 work anyway. I know people who have invested a couple of million in digital
equipment and don't make the kind of claims one encounters on these forums. Very
high-quality work can certainly be done either way, as well as by numerous hybrid
methods, but it's sheer bunk that large format film is somehow superseded from a
quality standpoint. Even Sinar doesn't claim that, and look at the cost of their digital
backs!

[Peter K]

It is hard for me to understand how the dynamic range of a digital back could be wider, without HDR of course, than that of B&W film.

The question would be, is the dynamic range of one shot MFDB even as wide as that of color negative film?
Sandy, why not HDR but at the other side chromes with highlight- and contrast-masks?

Peter

[sanking]

Sandy, why not HDR but at the other side chromes with highlight- and contrast-masks?

Peter

HDR is a great tool but multiple exposure bracketing does not work as well in many situations as one-shot on film.

As for chrome film, abandoned it many years ago because of the very limited dynamic range. For my notion 4X5 and 5X7 color negative film is so much superior overall to chrome film that it is hard for me to understand why the later is still made.

Sandy

[Marko]

My issue is that the cost of color film and high quality drum scans are killing me (~15 shots per week). But are there users of MFDB who are able to get the same creamy & 3D-esque quality (as 8x1o) in the end prints with MFDB?

I would very much appreciate any feedback from users who have made their own comparisons (in either 4x5 or 8x10) with MFDB. Pointers to articles discussing this as well.

This is such a simple, clearly articulated request.

I wonder how many respondents have actually owned or at least ever used an MFDB themselves?

Or done 15 or so high quality drum scans of an 8x10 film weekly. Or perhaps even monthly?

[Archphoto]

Marko, it is a matter of economic's: if I would buy a DB now I would need new lenses to get the same results/vieuws in the wide angles aswell.
The cost of that investment has to be less than what I make extra with the new set, that has a shorter technological life span than the analogue gear I am using right now and have been using for the past 30 years.
I have been looking for a scanning 4x5 inch back for a long time and still have not found one and the smaller ones cost me close to - or - over 10k.
Earn that money back in two years................
I don't have the asignments for it.

Add to a DB the extra weight of a laptop with goodies and you need at least a pick-up truck: great for the US, unthinkable in Europe.

LF digi is nice in a studio for pack-shots, for architecture on location it is not practical.

The only digi thing that has made real money for me is my DSLR.

By the way: I scan my 4x5's myself on an Epson and the results are loved by my clients, who print the filles themselves on max 12x16 inches, many times smaller.

Shure I would love to have a full frame 60 Mpix digi-back for my Mamiya RB67 with an internal memory large enough to hold 400 shots and a viewing screen at the back for $ 3000,-
But to ask for that is unrealistic, so I will stay with my DSLR and it's 10 Mpix.

Peter

[don mills]

Drew,

What is this 5x7 "three shot" camera you speak of? I can't find one online.

Thanks.

DM


Sandy - you're no doubt aware of a few folks recently who are refubishing old 5x7
three-shot cameras and putting T-Max in them. Talk about dynamic range! Of course,
here's where your hybrid technology really shines by allowing a much easier realignment of the three distinct separation negatives.

[Marko]

Peter,

No argument here.

The OP has very specifically asked those who have had the chance to use both 8x10 and the MFDB what was their opinion on the quality differential.

I can't offer a qualified opinion because I haven't had a chance to use both. All I'm saying is that the majority if not all of the participants in this thread haven't had a chance either, despite all the passion.

:)

[Drew Wiley]

Hi Don - one or two of these actually have turned up on EBay, but you're talking about
something antique, mostly made by Devin, which has to be gutted and updated with
modern filters and lenses. Try the Dye Transfer Forum for details. Technicolor movie
cameras were also tricolor. Rather than a prism-style beamsplitter these cameras used
pellicles to split the incoming image three ways. The red and green images get sent
to TM100 sheet film, while the lower transmission of the tricolor blue filter gets to a
sheet of TM400. I know that TMax tends to shoulder off when printed onto ordinary
papers, but it does have great potential range, particularly when scanned and the
curves are matched for both linearity and image alignment. Then they can be used for
dye transfer, tricolor carbon, or even conventional printing with a registered carrier.
But they don't have to be scanned at all, and certainly weren't when these kinds of
cameras were being made new, back when Carbro was state of the art! But in reference to this thread, I mentioned it simply because this is an example of how a
much wider range of exposure is possible using conventional film versus straight digital;
and given something like DT printing you can also get a significantly better color gamut
than is currently possible by digital printing too (at about a hundred times more work!)

[sanking]

Hi Don - one or two of these actually have turned up on EBay, but you're talking about
something antique, mostly made by Devin, which has to be gutted and updated with
modern filters and lenses. Try the Dye Transfer Forum for details. Technicolor movie
cameras were also tricolor. Rather than a prism-style beamsplitter these cameras used
pellicles to split the incoming image three ways. The red and green images get sent
to TM100 sheet film, while the lower transmission of the tricolor blue filter gets to a
sheet of TM400. I know that TMax tends to shoulder off when printed onto ordinary
papers, but it does have great potential range, particularly when scanned and the
curves are matched for both linearity and image alignment. Then they can be used for
dye transfer, tricolor carbon, or even conventional printing with a registered carrier.
But they don't have to be scanned at all, and certainly weren't when these kinds of
cameras were being made new, back when Carbro was state of the art! But in reference to this thread, I mentioned it simply because this is an example of how a
much wider range of exposure is possible using conventional film versus straight digital;
and given something like DT printing you can also get a significantly better color gamut
than is currently possible by digital printing too (at about a hundred times more work!)


Drew,

I am still waiting for the new pellicles from National Fotocolor to complete restoration of my 5X7 one-shot camera. I expected the new pellicles a couple of months ago, but due to manufacturing problem delivery has been delayed.

Once I get the new pellicles installed I will work in anti-reflection coating for the Red, Green and Blue filters.

My initial thoughts are that the restored camera will have some significant advantages over Lf scanning backs, and pretty much blow anything else digital out of the water in terms of pure image quality, where the conditions permit use of a one-shot color camera. By my estimates, that should be pretty much anywhere LF scanning backs would work. In fact, I can even see functional advantages in terms of image quality of the old one-shot camera over the LF scanning back.

Convenience of use is another matter.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

Sandy - I use both chrome and neg sheet films. The higher contrast of chrome is a real
advantage because you can then selectively mask it just the way you want. Negative
films don't have much latitutde for that. Since I mostly shoot 8x10 I would pay a
small fortune to have my color sheets scanned. I could buy a drum scanner, but then
how long until it would be unservicable unless I bought a couple of extra scanners for
parts? Or I could get a 50K flatbed Creo? So in my particular case, it costs me about
5% as much to print a color neg directly onto C-paper as having it scanned and output
to Lightjet on exactly the same paper! Of course, the look and so forth are somewhat
different. And for Ciba, chromes are the way to go. Maybe after I retire in a few years
I will have time for more alternative work, like DT or possibly carbon. But in the meantime, I don't see any way to make a buck digitally. If I was a product, architectural, or wedding photographer, or mass-producing "editions" it would be the
other way around.

[Jim collum]

I've have 4x5 film, 4x5 scanning back, MFDB and have shot a lot of 8x10 film. The MFDB is a 33Mp back, and i shoot mostly with a Horseman SWDII, which provides rise, fall and shifts. It performs those shifts rather quickly, and other than wildlife shots (which i don't think many 8x10 or 4x5 film shooters will be doing either)... there hasn't been anything i haven't been able to capture with shifts... 9 shots in total, giving roughly the same sensor real estate as 6x7 film. The scanning back has a few more restrictions (mostly moving water and breezy days).. but it's still possible to capture landscape shots in the field with it. With the Betterlight and the MFDB shift stitched (rear rise and fall.. so there's no parallax issues in stitching...).. you're not apt to see any digital artifacts or feeling that there's detail missing in a 30x40" print.

The looks are very different between a Cibachrome and an inkjet.. but then put a Burkett print next to a Misrach print.. and they won't look very similar either.... it's a matter of taste.

From my experience, the biggest difference in the systems is in the field workflow... how convenient it is, and how much it suits one's personal style of shooting. I've hauled an Ebony and Betterlight setup thru Ankgor Wat, and didn't have any problems in doing so.... again.. personal style (a 35mm P&S film shooter might think that 4x5 shooters were crazy with the gear they haul around). I shoot architectural, and the MFDB tethered to a laptop is a powerful combination. I'm not one to shotgun a camera to get the right image, delivering 12-18 images at the most during a day's shoot. The advantage i've found is that i know without a doubt, that every image taken is a keeper at the end of a day. It allow for me to adjust the lighting and composition real time, much easier than it was with film.

DR.... I'd say the Leaf back sits between slide and color negative film.. with the Betterlight equaling if not surpassing color negative film. B/W still has the lead, with the chemical control available. Your personal style of shooting would influence this as well.. I seldom photograph when the sun is out... preferring overcast to slightly overcast light to full sunlight... so i can probably live with 4-5 stops of DR.

From experience, this debate is a religious issue with most people... tempers flare, insults are thrown, everything becomes personal.... and people rarely change their mind on this issue as a result of a forum discussion.

If anyone is in the Santa Cruz, CA area, and are interested in a friendly photo outing, with the chance to use any of the digital or film tools I have, or share with me the tools you use... PM me, and we can get together and learn something

[Drew Wiley]

Jim - I might take you up on that some day. In the meantime, I personally find this
seemingly endless ideological "debate" over technology quite useful. Since I don't
personally use digital I learn a lot of things I wouldn't otherwise know, and perhaps
in the other direction, certain people might benefit from my darkroom experience.
A great deal has to do with personal inclination, of course. For example, most of these posts I sneak in while waiting for another damn business report to file out
of the printer. I get enough of computers! And I not only like the look which film and
optical enlargement gives, I also enjoy darkroom work. Those of us who use film
tend to gravitate towards the specific limitations in contrast ratio, pallete, etc
offered by those films and printing papers available to us. Digital printers tend to
relish the "control" they get over the film curve, saturation, etc - or maybe they
just don't like the smell of a darkroom! But there are all kinds of interesting problems and possibilities in both directions, plus the added complication of shifting
technology and marketing issues. Even if we don't convert one another, the "debate"
is still quite interesting, plus potentially useful to those sitting on the fence!

[don mills]

Drew,

What enlarger/glass do you use for your large prints?

Thanks.

DM

[Drew Wiley]

Don - I currently use four different enlargers. For black and white work from 35mm up to 4x5 film I have a garden-variety Omega with colorhead. Once in awhile I'll
punch a 20x24 from 4x5, and this works fine. Then I have a custom cold light on a Durst chassis for 8X10 black and white. Going to color, I have a customized additive 5x7 head on a Durst chassis which is used for printing chromes and color negs up
to 4x5, plus for making color dupes, internegs, masks, separation negs, etc - a lot
of very precise things within a bona fide cleanroom. Then my biggest enlarger is
about 12 ft tall and totally built ground up like a boulder. It is equipped with a very
unusual additive head which was a pain in the butt to design but works quite well,
without the excessive heat associated with store-bought large colorheads. Better
color too. The carriers for this, including a pin-registed one, are all custom and
matched to my Condit punches. I have a variety of enlarging lenses and diffusion
devices on hand, each with a slightly different purpose. My big vaccum easel was
cannibalized off a horizontal copy camera 22 feet long! Dread the thought of ever
moving!

[Bill_1856]

What's MFDB?

[Jim collum]

What's MFDB?

Medium Format Digital Back (in my case An Aptus Leaf 75s)

[Jim collum]

Jim - I might take you up on that some day. In the meantime, I personally find this
seemingly endless ideological "debate" over technology quite useful. Since I don't
personally use digital I learn a lot of things I wouldn't otherwise know, and perhaps
in the other direction, certain people might benefit from my darkroom experience.
A great deal has to do with personal inclination, of course. For example, most of these posts I sneak in while waiting for another damn business report to file out
of the printer. I get enough of computers! And I not only like the look which film and
optical enlargement gives, I also enjoy darkroom work. Those of us who use film
tend to gravitate towards the specific limitations in contrast ratio, pallete, etc
offered by those films and printing papers available to us. Digital printers tend to
relish the "control" they get over the film curve, saturation, etc - or maybe they
just don't like the smell of a darkroom! But there are all kinds of interesting problems and possibilities in both directions, plus the added complication of shifting
technology and marketing issues. Even if we don't convert one another, the "debate"
is still quite interesting, plus potentially useful to those sitting on the fence!

Let me know.. I head into the City all the time for Architectural day trips, so I could come into SF as well.

And you're right about the smell... I love the smell of fixer. In fact, I remember opening a box of inkjet Harman Bayrta paper when it first came out.. and thought.. ah... Ilford Galerie... It smelled just like it. I get my 'darkroom' fix with Alt processes now... I still love the alchemy.