what is the ideal scanning of 6x9 slide for equal a 35mm digital full frame RAW similar a Canon 5d mark II 21 megas ?
What scanner for medium format film model is your recommendation?
Printable View
what is the ideal scanning of 6x9 slide for equal a 35mm digital full frame RAW similar a Canon 5d mark II 21 megas ?
What scanner for medium format film model is your recommendation?
Find a used Nikon LS-8000ED or LS-9000ED. The 8000 will be cheaper, but it will be just as good. Both use the same holders. The 8000 requires a Firewire interface so you may need to get a Firewire card for your computer (less than $20). You'll need Vuescan (www.hamrick.com) to operate it--the Nikon software will work on Windows XP but not Windows 7.Quote:
Originally Posted by joseprfoto
These scanners operate at 4000 spi and will scan up to 6x9 in one go. They support ICE, an infrared cleaning channel, manual focus, single-pass multi-scanning, and other features, except for wet mounting. The price on these has been going up lately, because Nikon has discontinued them. They are more expensive than a consumer flatbed (though perhaps not by that much), but much less expensive than an Imacon.
I am able to make 16x20 prints from 6x7 that look better than 16x20 prints from a Canon 5D (Mk I) going and coming (the limitation on the 5D is not pixel density but rather lens quality--and I have good lenses).
There are other vintage film scanners of the same type as the Nikon, including the Minolta Multi Pro, the Polaroid Sprintscan 120, and a few others. But to my eye the Nikon was the best of these, and the easiest to keep in operation, closely followed by the Minolta (except that the Minolta software is dreadful--use Vuescan). There is nothing currently made that is as good in that price range.
I don't think a scan of 6x9 in a consumer flatbed will be any better than what you might get from a 5D. I use an Epson V750 with 4x5, and have experimented with 6x12, but the 6x12 results were such that I do all my scans of that format with the Nikon in two passes and then stitch.
If you have more to spend than $1500-2000, an Imacon is the next step up (not a huge step in results, in my opinion). The next (bigger) step up from there is a PMT drum scan.
Rick "maybe some high-end flatbeds fill in one of those gaps, but not cheaply" Denney
My only experience with comparing large reproductions of medium format film and digital was a Fuji GX680 (Nikon scanner) and a Nikon D3. No contest at 60 by 80 inches. We (my wife's project) ended up going that route thanks to advice from this forum.
I thought that Nikon scan software could work on Windows 7 with some trickery. It runs well on my Vista machine and I use it more often than Vuescan.
i agree with the above and have tested it too death. 6x9 with a Epson 750 scan-give me a 5D II file and good lenses. 6x9 with a Nikon 9000 or drum scan-give me the 6x9 file.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdenney
The Nikon software works nicely with Win7 32bit. What it does not do is install in 64bit Vista or 7 - but there are patches about on the net that fix that issue with a generic driver. Once that hurdle has been taken, it does work perfectly well even in 64bit Win7...
Probably first test of new 120 film Reflecta MF5000 scanner (Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120):
http://blog.livedoor.jp/deepstop/arc...at_141403.html
Plustek is going to show its new 120 scanner this year too.
For best results scanning a 6X9 cm slide you need a drum scan at 4000 dpi or more. Neither Imacon nor LS-8000 or LS-9000 can get the shadow detail that a good drum scan will give you. Epson V700/V750 won't come close to a drum scanner in either resolution or shadow detail, and loses to the Imacon in resolution (though not by as much as price differential would suggest).
Sandy
I'm with Sandy on this one. I scan my 6x7's at 8,000 ppi on my drum scanner. Images are razor sharp. It will far exceed what digital can do.... That's the ideal, as you put it...
Lenny
I don't think the OP defined "ideal" the way you and Sandy do. Nobody would argue with your conclusions, of course, but they are based on the definition of "ideal" as "state of the art". The OP defined "ideal" as "achieving quality better than from a Canon 5DII."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger
This matters. He might choose the Canon if the only way he can do better using 6x9 film is with drum scans that cost a pile of dollars for each image. On the other hand, if he can better the Canon with a $1500 scanner, then he might go that direction. He certainly won't achieve his standard ("better than 5DII") with an Epson.
As to shadow detail, a color transparency is the biggest challenge there is for a scanner, it seems to me. But I just don't think I'm missing much shadow detail in my Nikon scans of Velvia. Those scans are certainly not as crisp as drum scans, and the drum scan might get a bit more out of the shadows, but it's just not a problem I've noticed. Color negatives are less of a problem--they compress a greater subject brightness range into a narrower density range.
It certainly does him no harm to know that he can do still better, though, for those images where the Nikon doesn't provide all he needs.
Rick "not seeing much on the light table that can't be seen on the Nikon scan" Denney
6x9 is a curious animal. Considering how the question was framed there's no simple answer. A Nikon Coolscan 8000/9000 has a fixed pitch 4000 dpi sensor array that delivers not more than 67 lp/mm resolution throughput with optical losses. I don't know of any 6x9 image-circle lenses that greatly trounce the 67 lp/mm number of the Coolscan (though there might be some), so 6x9 is probably the sweet spot for that scanner if one was to match it to a format. (Leaving aside that some legacy film types may tend to grain-alias at this 4000 dpi pitch, e.g. old Portra or Fujicolor NC.)
However, certain Mamiya, Rollei Planars, and Zeiss lenses test out at well over 100 lp/mm on film (Perez, Thalmann et al) and I expect that I've got a 645 lens that does, too, as well as several 35mm ones. It takes aproximately a 6000 dpi scan to hit the Nyquist 2X sampling rate for 110 lp/mm resolution on film.
Do the resulting hybrid film-to-digital Coolscan files look better than a printer-RIP interpolated files from a 24MP 5D Mark II? Hard to say without knowing the post-processing skills of the operator. I do have an idea which one is going to be cheaper and easier to do (or have done). I also know that one can print relatively huge from even a modest 12MP DSLR and have it look quite good in a 6' print, better than any wholly optical print I've ever seen from 35mm by at least a format jump.
I also know that higher resolving than 5K drum scanners are probably cheaper to buy used just now than Coolscans, and they'll do substantially better at digitizing legacy images from smaller format sizes than just 6x9 cm.
I took ideal to mean the best quality. Drum scanners get cheaper ever day, altho the higher end ones have kept their value.....Quote:
Originally Posted by rdenney
Rick, you have to see it yourself to now the difference. In some cases, up against a film scanner, the biggest difference was the the Premier pulled a lot more color out of the chrome. There were subtle color shifts that the other scanners didn't pick up. You don't know what you're missing until you try it...Quote:
Originally Posted by rdenney
P.S. I agree with Ivan that some of the med format lenses are unbelievable. I have a Mamiya 7 II and its razor sharp...
Lenny
I don't doubt it. But owning and knowing how to use a drum scanner, even an old one that is as cheap as a used Nikon 8000, is still a lot more expensive and difficult. The older and cheaper the drum scanner, the scarcer and more expensive the pieces that come with it, and the more challenging it is to maintain the computer that runs it. The Nikon is recently discontinued, but a lot were sold for a long time, and the 8000 and 9000 use the same bits. It runs on any PC and does not require any special software or hardware. It also does not take up a big chunk of floor space. I'm biased, of course--I already own one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger
Rick "who hasn't seen any drum scanners in immediately usable condition that could be bought for $1500 like a Nikon 8000" Denney
I have. Plenty of them on EvilBay...Quote:
Originally Posted by rdenney
They aren't hard to learn. 4500's have a good source of parts. I think some of the better film scanners are better than 'just ok' including the 8000 and the Flextight, as long as the Nikon has something to flatten the film and some liquid preferably.
However, when you find the neg that want want everything out of, then a drum scan is in order.... just my 2 cents.
Lenny
$1500 is most definitely possible, though the pickings seem to be slimmer these days as the commercial shift away from film is pretty advanced. The problem is you have to know what you are looking for. In the best-case scenario, you have to be lucky (or patient) enough to stumble upon an honest, local seller who will show you the equipment before you buy it, rather than these warehouse-based, "It powers on so it must be mint," electronics resellers. For a few thousand more, you can buy a fully-functional scanner, ready-to-go, up to the manufacturer's specifications, from a prepress company like Genesis.
I do not own a drum scanner, but I was lucky enough to find a Screen Cezanne for about $1500, with Apple G4. It is far more versatile than a Nikon 8000.
No argument. I never said the drum scanner was not better. I just said it was more expensive and difficult. And I said the Nikon was good enough to make it worth doing 6x9 on film instead of using a Canon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger
I switched from the glassless carrier to the glass carrier, and got Newton rings that I could not overcome. I've switched back to the glassless carrier after fiddling with it a bit to hold the film as tight as is needed to keep it flat. With that bit of extra care, my scans are well-focused edge to edge. But it does take some care. Liquid isn't really needed when there's no glass.
I think I'd be a little cautious about buying a Howtek 4500 on eBay, but that's me.
Rick "who might be forced to, someday" Denney
I used to think MF film would always win hands down if compared to 5D2 for medium to large prints. A couple of months ago used a borrowed Canon for a project for a week or two and ended up buying one shortly after. The zooming in the LV makes for a very accurate focus and the files are just too easy to process and upsample. Almost every MF color landscape photographer I know or followed on the web went to digital for a reason.
6x9 and 645 ain't the same thing, of course. But a lot of medium-format photographers make rectangular prints from 6x6, which means 645 or even 6x4. It's tough to beat a 5DII with 645.Quote:
Originally Posted by NicolasArg
But the 5DII has a bigger challenge with 6x9, it seems to me. 6x9 is a bigger leap from 6x4, than 6x4 is over 24x36.
Ease of work flow is another matter, and subject to facts not provided by the OP.
By the way, I have excellent L-series lenses for my 5D old version, and it's a pretty rare shot where I can't see the imperfections in the lens at the pixel level.
Rick "whose Nikon scans of roll film blow away the 5D at least" Denney
Well, I sold my 5D1 about a month ago after buying the mark ii. Before selling it, I tested them both from the same tripod and using the same lenses with different subjects. The mark ii has a huge advantage with the live view focusing. It was almost impossible for me to match with the 5d the precise focus I got with the mark II. It's like using a ground glass and a x10 loupe vs looking at the GG from 60cm. But even precisely focused, the mark ii resolves far more on the practical level. I have a couple of shots where I just left two cards with fine writing on them on the table and snapped a shot or two with each camera from tripod using a WA manual lens. The writing on the 5d file is almost illegible and no sharpening can solve it. On the 5d2 file even the smallest letters are perfectly defined. In real world shots it translates into finer textures, perfectly defined leaves and organic patterns and overall volume and sharpness that leads to the elusive MF look I could never pull out of 5d.
I'm by no means saying that 5d2 is BETTER than 6x7 or 6x9 frames, it just happens for ME at least that my epson v700 could pretty easily beat the 5d files with well exposed negs and now, I feel that MF scanned on a coolscan (a friend has a Nikon 8000) looks just like 5d2 but with dust, more chromatic noise, film flatness problems and grain and to feel a REAL advantage of the MF film over the 5d2 I'd need a drum scanner.
MF film of course has a lot of other aesthetic features, but if someone is thinking about spending 2-3k on a scanner and a MF camera just to match 5d2, PERHAPS it'd be wiser just to buy a 5d2.
Nicolas "my Toyo 4x5 still beats the 5d2" Belokurov :)
Completely agree here. I still contend that my Nikon D700 shots with top-tier lenses generally were as good or better than my Pentax 67 negs/trannies scanned on an LS-8000. But if I got them drum scanned, maybe it would be a different story. I am considering getting back into 120 but only using a novel panoramic format, otherwise I'd still not bother with anything smaller than 4x5 (well, except for my 35mm Nikon RF which I just love to death and has more character than anything else I own, including all my Schneider glass).Quote:
Originally Posted by NicolasArg
It would be a different story. I just blew some from my Mamiya up to 40 inches and the sharpness is beyond belief... way better than I anticipated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
Digital is getting better, of course. Some day it will actually get better enough. And then years after might even get to a reasonable cost.
However, I don't think it will be in the 35mm size. Generally speaking, the difference between 4x5 and 8x10 (or even med format with lenses as good as the Mamiya's) is not in sharpness and resolution but tonality, which is a factor of film real estate. More film to describe a series of tonal shifts results in better (and smoother) rendition of them. Until the sensor sizes get to be full size they won't be able to match their film counterparts.
Lenny
A couple of comments .
First, Pentax 67 optics don't come close to Mamiya 711. I once owned both systems at the same time and in my comparisons, which involved both real life photography and tests with targets, Mamiay 7II lenses gave between 25-45% more detail than Pentax 67 lenses.
Second, tonality is not uniquely a quality of real estate (area) with film. It also depends on grain and film contrast. Tonal transition values are much better with fine grain B&W films than with medium speed and high speed films. In general if you compare 4X5 and MF film of the same type and speed the tonal transitions will be better with 4X5 at the same magnification. But if you make the comparison between a high speed (ASA 400) film in 4X5 with a medium speed film (ASA 100) in MF results should be quite similar.
Sandy
Great information,but any examples with photos comparations examples in the web?
Thank you Lenny for the input. Exactly what I've been suspecting since the 5d2 hit the market- film aesthetics aside, in order to get some superior to digital results with medium format, a quality drum scanner and a capable operator is a mustQuote:
Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger
You may conclude this. However, I am not ready to make that leap. I have spent a lot of time being wrong about my conclusions. I would need some direct experience, testing and shooting and printing myself, before I will make that judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by NicolasArg
I don't think much of most of the consumer-level flatbeds, but I will note that, to be fair, some folks are getting much better results than others. Operator skill is also important there as well, it would appear.
However, I also think that this type if discussion is quite a minefield. Every time someone comes up with something I think is ludicrous, I go look at their images and often they are trying to do accomplish something in their printing I would never consider. There are a lot of things that will work fine for one person and not another.
Lenny
How did you eliminate the Pentax 6x7 mirror vibration from those tests to get just the lens performance? Also, the guys who have been testing Pentax 6x7 lenses on the new 645D say there are differences in copies of the same lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanking
Ive seen mamiya 7II 2400 dpi epson v700 scans vs canon 5d mk2 shots and the mamiya 7 II wins hands down in sharpness. canon 5d mk2 was using 50mm f1.4
6x7cm = 5670 x 6612, yes the v700 is interpolating because is not resolving true 2400dpi, but the 5d mk2 is not even close to a true 21 megapixel camera, so the 5616 x 3744 is heavily interpolated, probably more so than the 2400dpi of a 6x7 negative.
I used to have a 5d mk2, now have a mamiya 7II, maybe ill borrow one of my friends 5d mk2s and do some comparison tests with a v700 scanner. (80mm f4 mamiya vs 50mm f1.4 canon is as close as ill be able to get for fov).
I dont think it would even be close.. This isnt even taking into account the fact that medium format has way better depth of field, film has color that is simply impossible with digital to replicate, and film has much better dynamic range.
The Pentax I owned was the last model produced, 67 II I believe, and it had a mirror lock down feature. I always used this when testing lenses. The Pentax lenses were ok, just not up to the Mamiya optics. The Pentax 67 line of lenses is much older, plus the Mamiya lens designers did not have to worry about a mirror.Quote:
Originally Posted by tuco
Sandy
Which lenses and what model versions are very important.
I would contend that the newest models of the 55mm and 200mm Pentax lenses are probably as good or close to the Mamiya, and many say the newest 105mm is as well though I never shot that one much except wide-open so I can't say myself. The 90mm f/2.8 LS was also a great performer.
With a converter to Nikon F-mount I tested the Pentax 67 200mm lens directly against the Nikon Micro-Nikkor 200mm on my D700 and D90 and the Pentax was sharper, hands down, at any aperture, and on film it was always consistently excellent on the whole shot everywhere. The 55mm was the same story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanking
Explain it please: if you want to have 20x28" (50x70cm) enlargement from 6x9 b&w film scanned on drum in 4000dpi (its highest resolution), you will get much bigger enlargement, will you? For 50x70cm size a sufficient ans appropriate resolution is 2300dpi. Is it better to scan it in 4000dpi and to scale the file later to 50x70cm size (with some lost resolution and details) than to scan the film in 2300dpi without scaling? Which scanning method is better and why?Quote:
Originally Posted by sanking
With a drum scan it isn't quite so important... this is really a much bigger issue with flatbed scanning. Because of the sensors they use, flatbeds introduce a good bit of sensor noise into the scans, and so it is common practice to 'oversample' i.e. to multiscan and to scan at highest possible resolution and then reduce the size of the scanned file to suit the print. This has the effect of averaging out the noise and producing a cleaner result.Quote:
Originally Posted by renes
In contrast, a [true] drum scanner has a very low-noise photomultiplier sensor and this isn't so much an issue. It also has no imaging lens (it's only there to collect light, not to image it), so you also don't get lens artifacts with a drum.
That said, with a drum, you can scan down to the grain/dye clumps etc and tune the aperture so that graininess is minimized, so for that reason you may want to scan to the max and reduce the size afterwards.
I'm not an expert but that's my quick 5 cent explanation ;)
Scanning takes a lot of time so I don't want to find myself in a situation where I have to scan a negative again to make a larger print. So I scan it the first time at as high a resolution in spi as practical, determined by computer processor speed, disk storage space, etc. so that all (or as much as possible) of the detail is captured. With medium format negatives of 6X7 cm or 6X9 cm one generally has plenty of speed and storage space to scan at the highest optical resolution. What I then do is make all of the corrections on this master file and archive it. I can then downsize it to whatever I want for printing.
As has been mentioned before, some of the high quality medium format optics can resolve 100 lp/pm so even a scan at 4000 dpi will not necessarily capture all of the detail in a negative made on high resolution film like Tmax-100 or Acros.
Sandy King
Scanning takes a lot of time so I don't want to find myself in a situation where I have to scan a negative again to make a larger. So I scan it the first time at as high a resolution in spi as practical, determined by computer processor speed, disk storage space, etc. so that all (or as much as possible) of the detail is captured. With medium format negatives of 6X7 cm or 6X9 cm one generally has plenty of speed and storage space to scan at the highest optical resolution. What I then do is make all of the corrections on this master file and archive it. I can then downsize it to whatever I want for printing.
As has been mentioned before, some of the high quality medium format optics can resolve 100 lppm so even a scan at 4000 dpi will not necessarily capture all of the detail in a negative made on high resolution film like Tmax-100 or Acros.
Sandy King
I scan 6x7's at 8000. I get a 2.2 Gig file. It is better to not scale files at all. I'll keep this all in inches, as dpi is in inches... 2300 dpi x 2.75 inches (7cm) is 6325 pixels. 6325 divided by 28 yields a dpi of 225. This is not sufficient for full quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by renes
28 in print * 300 dpi would be a total of 8400 pixels. 2300 (6325) is not enough. I agree with Sandy that you don't want to scan again when you decide you want a 37in print, you want to archive it... My file (2.75 * 8000) yields a total of 22,000 pixels. Divide that by 300 and you can make a 73 inch print, or a 36 inch one at 600 dpi. I like more than 300 dpi to the print, for b&w especially.
Scaling up is not a good idea. Scaling down can be, when one is sharpening smaller images. However, for printing a decent sized print it is not usually necessary. I refuse to believe that the printer prints any better at 300 or 363 than it does at 422.5, for example.
I have a Mamiya 7 II and I agree, the lenses are phenomenal....
I hope this helps explain a few things.
Lenny
Thank you all for clear explanation.
One more question: if one flatbed sanner's true attainable optical resolution is 2000dpi (i.g Epson 4990), is it good not to surpass it when seting it in scanner's soft to get best film scan performance?
It's not quite clear to me when the flatbed scanner achieves its highest optical resolution during scanning: when it's set at 2000dpi (same as optical resolution), higher, or at highest resolution available in scanner's soft (i.g. 9800dpi) ?
Depends on the flatbed. The Epson V700, if you use the sharper lens that is engaged when you select film holder, delivers resolution of about 2000 dpi if you scan at 2000 dpi. If you scan at 6400 dpi you will get real resolution of about 2400 dpi. So you do gain some resolution by scanning at the highest possible optical setting, but not much. However, if you have the time and disk space you will get the best scan by using the highest optical setting, then reduce the file size to 2400 dpi.Quote:
Originally Posted by renes
High end flatbeds, like the Eversmarts and Cezannes, do a much better job in that real resolution is 90% or more of optical resolution. The optical resolution of my Eversmart Pro is 3175 dpi, and tests of targets shows that it delivers almost 100% of that figure.
Sandy
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanking
But the higher resolution is chosen, the more USM need to be used for sharp image?
I konw you have tested a few 4990 scanners and got 1800 effective resolution. Did you reach this amount when set-up epson scanning program at 1800dpi or at higher dpi?
I don't find that more USM is needed to get a sharp image when you scan at high resolution. In fact, I don't use any sharpening when scanning.Quote:
Originally Posted by renes
Can not recall the details of testing the 4990. That was a long time ago and I apparently did not save ay of the test scans. However, in general all of the Epson scanners work about the same. You get maximum detail by scanning at the highest possible optical resolution, but in many cases there is very little difference in scanning at about 2000 dpi and 4800 or 7400 dpi. As I mentioned earlier, you gain some by scanning at the highest resolution, but the percentage increase is small and may not be worth your time and effort.
Sandy
Question:
- Anyone have experience w/ the Epson Expression 10000XL- Photo Scanner ?
- How much better, or is it? than the Epson Perfection V750-M Pro ?
I have no idea but considering the price for scanner and optional transparency unit I wonder if it might be better bang for the buck to look for a used Eversmart or similar.
The optical system of the V700/750 is as good, if not better, than that of the 10000XL. But to get the most out of the V700/750 you have to adjust the height of the holder above the glass to make sure focus is correct. You can not adjust focus with the V700/750 with software as it is fixed. The Epson 10000XL can be auto-focused or manually focused through the sofware driver. This is a big advantage since you can get sharp focus automatically regardless of the position of the negative in relation to the base glass.Quote:
Originally Posted by buggz
Sandy
Based on my experience and some calculations on MTF models, low ISO slide and BW film in 6x7 or 6x9 format are still a match for 20-24 Megas full frame digital SLRs. Full frame 36 Megas bodies however will best 6x9 most of the times, particularly in low contrast scenarios.
Color separation is definetely better for film, dynamic range and color accuracy for digital.
Personally I don't care for accuracy: I miss the Velvia 50 palette every time I shoot digital.
However dynamic range is a big pro.
That is for one-shot situations or macro scenarios; a pano head setup with DSLR will allow for much better performance even for single row panos in landscape use.
Mamiya 7 II body/lenses are capable of stunning performance on 6x7, but it only matters for apertures larger than F11; for most of the other 6x7 or 6x9 brands, film transport precision and consequent film bulge will limit performance.
Typical 0,2 mm bulge in the film channel will limit performance to 60-70 lp/mm even with the best BW film; excellent lenses like Pentax 45mm F4 or 55mm F4 or Fujinon 65mm F.6 are limited by film positioning precision.
Mamiya 6/7, Contax and Hasselblad bodies are generally built with better precision and thus produce better results wide open.
In the F16-F22 range, differences are flattened and performance is still up to 50-70 lp/mm, depending on film and scene contrast.
Considering the DOF requirements for the 6x7 or 6x9 format, I end up shooting in that range anyway and forget about lens performance.
3000dpi (effective optical) scans, processed with radius 2 sharpening, will let you recover most of the info from film without delving too much into grain; 4000dpi for the very best BW shots.
I can have a single 6x9 scan with Flextight X5 @ 3200dpi for 4€ /5$: not cheap but acceptable considering I choose only my best shots to be scanned.
A drum scan, provided you can still find a skilled and careful operator, is always better for slides; for negs a Nikon Coolscan 9000 (imho considerably better than the 8000) is on par and easier to operate.
On the long term digital is cheaper and delivers consistently better results in difficult scenarios.
Still for me, digital does not match the sporadic thrill of that planned, ponderated, slow film shot that turns out to be perfect once in a while.
Is this a Large Format topic?
--P
I won't say too much for fear of getting some of you mad at me.
My philosophy, I use film and carry it through with viewing prints made in a darkroom. I have a brand new flatbed scanner I bought from B&H a couple years ago that I've never used. I bought it as I have 45 plus years of film, slides that I plan on scanning someday, when time permits.
Everything I do with digital starts out with digital capture, process with computer and can be viewed in various ways.
What resolution is the medium you're using for viewing your scanned negs? What is the resolution of the paper or screen?
I've got some pretty nice 40x30 prints hanging in my office made with my Canon stuff.
Have a great weekend!
Don't want to address the scanning issue per se, since I don't print digital at all, but will
point out one relvant fact not addressed by this otherwise inetersting thread ... Once you
factor in movements and the ability to control the plane of focus, 6X9 on a reasonbly precise view camera with good lenses can pretty much blow any fixed-back camera out of
the water for detail, esp at longer focal lengths. But still no substitute for 4X5 or 8x10,
not even remotely.
Should clarify that a tad more ... like others, I'm not as young as I used to be, so am making some provisions for reducing my load on long backpack trips. So I started with what
I already have, a 4x5 Ebony - fine-tuned the film plane with a special depth micrometer,
then located a very clean Horseman 6X9 back, along with various ASA25 films ... having
printed them I'm fairly shocked at how much better the results are than either my P67
system (with late lenses) or friends with far more expensive Zeiss lenses. Simply being able
to control the plane at optimum apertures, rather than having small f-stops as your only
option for depth of field, becomes a complete game changer for me. It's still a way fussier
approach than using 4x5, but given how compact and light the lenses are (Fuji A's, Nikkor
M's etc), it makes even a 35mm system seem comparatively clunky.
I just add a tilt-shift lens to my digital camera when I want to control the plane of focus. Works as well for that purpose as the many 4x5 and 8x10 cameras I've owned. And a 21mpx digital camera coupled with an excellent lens and a capable photographer is very close to 4x5 with prints up to about 16x20. Not a match but infinitely closer than "not even remotely." I do print digitally and have for many years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
I keep forgetting that when anything digital comes into the discussion, this ultimately devolves into an ANTI-LF forum. But 16X20 is about the limit for really crisp prints with anything smaller than 4x5. I know ... blah blah blah ... to some folks even a Marlboro Man
billboard looks sharp at "normal viewing distance" (thirty yards away). Not my intent to get
into that diatribe however, but just to point out how LF might be ahead of the curve all along. Case in point, a 300mm Nikkor M weighs how much? bellows weighs what? And it's
damn crisp optically. Now compare that to a 300mm lens on a P67 and the heavy tripod
needed to stabilize it (forget the M7 because you can't even get a 300mm lens). Add up
several lenses or a big zoom, and compare this even to a DLSR system. Each has its relevant uses, but as far as portability is concerned relative to actual image quality, a
modern lightwt view camera might easily win the contest. The weak link is the film plane,
but it's not that difficult to level a few varnish bubbles or whatever.