Why shooting large format in these times?

[Jim collum]

Pretty much the same here. Only other photographers ask, and photographers may trade, but rarely buy prints. Most of the sizes sold are between 7" and 14" on the long edge. The majority of prints sold are Platinum. 90% of the images are from a variety of digital cameras.

I've been manning a booth at Photo LA for quite a while now, and have observed a mix of silver, ,platinum, & inkjet hanging being represented by the galleries showing. The driving factor in price is the name of the photographer... then the size. The percentage of inkjet has been growing each year, and i'd venture that it's the predominant medium used currently. Maybe this year, I'll go around and count just to make sure

interesting. I've never been asked by a buyer how I make my prints. Never. Plenty of questions by tire kickers but that's another story.

[Patrick13]

To answer the original question: shoot large format because camera controls let you stage shots that are technically very difficult to achieve in a digital system and don't have to borrow resolution against future post processing to make happen.

And you can do it using very inexpensive gear versus many thousands of dollars worth of camera and computer capable of doing that kind of post processing.

And that inexpensive gear will most likely outlive you and your grandchildren while the digital, not so much.

Any other logical argument can be defeated by claiming "chicks dig it when I whip out the large format."

[Robert Langham]

There is a elemental difference between setting your composition mechanically, with tripod, and free-handing it. Add that level of attention to having to learn to apply to a reversed image and I think that the differences between large format and nearly every other approach yield lessons that can't be learned otherwise.

[mdm]

There is one thing large format has that no other format does. Large Format. That comes with some obvious disadvantages and some advantages, may of which are very subtle.

[Corran]

You seem to all have accepted this false perception that a 36mp fullframe sensor has the same resolution as a 4x5 film. I am a kid who started photography with DSLRs and can't even decide where to start with Digital specific problems.

first of all, that 36mp sony sensor inside of a Nikon or Sony camera has a VERY high sensor aperture. 7360 photosites spread across 36mm. That's 7360/2/36= 102, let's repeat it in our heads again, hundred two line pairs per millimeter. Nikon is a good glass maker no doubt but still i would like to see ONE SINGLE nikon lens that can reproduce any acceptable contrast at that high of a resolution.

Oh wait a moment, that calculation is only valid if the photosites on the sensor are stacked one to one together without any wasted space between them. since in reality they do have circuits on the sensor the photosites are even tinier and more spread, requiring an even higher resolution lens.

Oh wait a moment, all this calculations were valid if the sensor was Black and White. Since these sensors are all Bayer patterned even with an IDEAL LENS which can resolve the required 200lp/mm they wouldn't output a 36mp picture.

On a Nikon D800 36mp Sensor YOU DO NOT HAVE STRAIGHT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LINES AT ANY GIVEN WAVELENGHT. the closest they come is to making one straight horizontal OR vertical green line and THAT IS IT, ONE straight line instead of the required 6(required for reproduction of circular color patterns).

And now let's forget how much data we are losing while doing all the debayering and color guess game and hundreds of different processes that are going on at the same time inside of a digital camera to output a picture.

Ok so what about film? 4x5 inches, a good normal Large format lens has good contrast reproduction ratios at 40lp/mm and film responses fantastically to that. That is 40*2*120= 9600 and 40*2*100= 8000.
9600*8000= 76.8 Million.

That's 76 million output real RGB pixels, a Digital sensor that wants to match that has to have 3 photosites on the sensor for every output pixel, which means an RGB 230 megapixel sensor that would output a 76mp image.

So until the industry has made a much larger sensor that has over 200mp photosites on it, no digital is not equal to 4x5 inch film, even in resolution, let's forget the color, let's forget the 8x10.

Question, since you've come out swinging against the 36mp sensor here...

Have you, you know, actually shot both side-by-side?

I have, and it's pretty clear to me that an image shot with an excellent Nikkor lens @ optimal aperture, compared to a 4x5 chrome shot at ~f/22 for DOF purposes (and the resultant diffraction) and scanned on an average consumer scanner like most have here, are about equal. Does it matter? Not particularly. I don't shoot with my Nikon D800E much because I prefer shooting film. But I tested this for my own curiosity.

[Drew Wiley]

I shoot large format because it's easier to silence nosey smart-alecs with a big Ries tripod, with an 8x10 atop it, than with a little wimpy tripod & DLSR. One good
whack is usually enough to end, "Whyya usin thet oooold thinnnnnnnnnnnng?"

[Flauvius]

Because we can, they can't, and we appreciate the difference!

Flauvius

[Arash]

"Average consumer scanner" being the keyword in your whole comment, I don't know about you but the pictures of the most newest digital gear makes me want to throw up.
Do you know what's the problem? the quantum efficiency of sensors is getting higher and higher every single day, which enables manufactures to make smaller and smaller photosites, therefore killing the image quality but keeping the spec sheet happy.
There are physical laws that manufactures can't fight, having a bigger picture surface helps with many many things when it comes to contrast reproduction and lens design. I attach a 6x6 photo taken on a twelve years old slide, i expect 15 years until digital sensors can reproduce these kind of color in this kind of resolution.

[pdmoylan]

I shoot color.

Once one has the sense of what one wants to accomplish with photography (i.e. the goal), you use a type of camera that offers a final image closest to the the imprint of a scene in your mind. In other words, is the image best on film or digital and why? Forget about resolution and print quality for the moment, particuarly if all you want is excellent 16x20 prints.

There are some images with the D800 I cannot create on film (ISO flexibility and AF). On the other hand, I have great difficulty achieving the appearance of infinite DOF, equal center to corner sharpness, and the color contrast of 4x5 using the D800. If I want ultimate impact I use 4x5 assuming the results could be taken with equal success on both. In my experience, the "wow" effect of the 4x5 in combination with Velvia is without comparison in digital. I often bemoan that I cannot take an image using the view camera because I need a faster shutterspeed and I am limited to asa 50 or 100.

The primary reason IMHO to use color 4x5 is not for increased resolution but to use extensive movements!

PDM

[Corran]

"Average consumer scanner" being the keyword in your whole comment, I don't know about you but the pictures of the most newest digital gear makes me want to throw up.
Do you know what's the problem? the quantum efficiency of sensors is getting higher and higher every single day, which enables manufactures to make smaller and smaller photosites, therefore killing the image quality but keeping the spec sheet happy.
There are physical laws that manufactures can't fight, having a bigger picture surface helps with many many things when it comes to contrast reproduction and lens design. I attach a 6x6 photo taken on a twelve years old slide, i expect 15 years until digital sensors can reproduce these kind of color in this kind of resolution.

You are correct that the bottleneck is the scanner. I have a high-end scanner now and one of these days I might do another comparison. I know the 4x5 will come out as the winner by some margin, but likely not by a massive amount. Remember, I'm talking about resolution. Now you brought up "smaller photosites" and claim they "kill image quality." I think that's a ridiculous statement, and one oft repeated ad infinitum here, erroneously. It's simply not true, otherwise the 36mp D800 would automatically look worse than a 5mp D1X. Clearly this is not the case.

Now color and such is a different story. Many people have told me they can "replicate" the color of a Velvia slide on digital. I don't believe it. Haven't tried myself, because I'd rather just use Velvia. But it is certainly a contentious point. That being said, I hardly think a blown-out slide is a valid comparison.