The hopeful future of film photography

[Chris Strobel]

that is why Rodney Lough still uses 8x10 for his huge prints (grainless), and he owns a 80mp camera.

He does?Last I talked to one of his assistants he had a P65+ on loan, but had given it back

[Brian Ellis]

Yes, many of us have decided 40mp does not match 4x5, including Charles Cramer. It may be good enough for him at his print sizes, but that is all he proved. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

You can see 4x5 is sharper, and he agrees 4x5 still holds and edge. But what he calls "close" takes a lot of extra pixels to go that extra bit further to match.

Said it before, 80mp at 9 ft will leave you outputting below 100ppi...that is why Rodney Lough still uses 8x10 for his huge prints (grainless), and he owns a 80mp camera.

Of course his opinions are based on his print sizes. On what other basis should he or could he form an opinion?

The Luminous Landscape article by Charles Cramer that you cite was written in January, 2006 and last updated in April, 2006. I'm not sure why you cited it but FWIW the one I cited was written last week. To the extent that what he said in 2006 is important to you, you might also read the outbackphoto article by Cramer that's linked at the end of the article you cited.

Please understand that I'm not arguing with you. I don't know or care whether a 4x5 camera will produce technically better prints than a digital back (and I especially don't know or care which is better for making 9 foot prints). I cited Charles Cramer's article only to show that opinions about a 4x5 camera vs a 39 mpx back differ among different well-known photographers.

[Ed Kelsey]

I've compared my 33 megapixel Leaf Aptus 75S to a drum scanned 4x5 Provia transparency. Same scene with approximately the same field of view. i.e. 45mm lens on the Aptus, 110mm on the 4x5.

The 4x5 has a little more detail but not all that much and certainly not enough to matter in a print up to 24x30 size. I think what it comes down to is that with digital every pixel contains real detail, for film this is questionable because of grain.

[John NYC]

Fwiw, on LuLa there is a recent thread with a shot of a house done on a 5d mark II and on a Mamiya MF digital. The Mamiya blows away the canon in the corners, but I suspect this is more of a lens thing.

Neither shot looks at rich as one of my flatbed 8x10 scans scaled down to that size. There is something distinctly flat and unnatural about the edge acutance. How this comes off in print is something else.

I spent some time photoshopping the Mamiya file, and i could not pump life into it no matter what I did. It doesn't look bad, but it is nowhere near what comes out of even a crappy flatbed scan from an 8x10.

This exercise convinced me that i am a long way away from wanting a mfdb. I just hope they keep making 8x10 film until digital changes enough to make me think differently.

I will be upgrading to ff digital this year for family snaps and casual portraits.

[D. Bryant]

Yes, many of us have decided 40mp does not match 4x5, including Charles Cramer. It may be good enough for him at his print sizes, but that is all he proved. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

You can see 4x5 is sharper, and he agrees 4x5 still holds and edge. But what he calls "close" takes a lot of extra pixels to go that extra bit further to match.

Said it before, 80mp at 9 ft will leave you outputting below 100ppi...that is why Rodney Lough still uses 8x10 for his huge prints (grainless), and he owns a 80mp camera.

Van Camper (or what ever your real name is),

I think the salient point is that you have never tested a digital back; Cramer has.

I've seen Cramer's prints first hand (24x30 plus) in the AA gallery and they are excellent. He doesn't own an Epson 11880 for nothing.

Don Bryant

[Drew Wiley]

Just the opposite, Ed. Most modern 4x5 color sheet film will hold more detail. Try getting much beyond a 20" wide print and its very apparent, especially if the printing
is done optically. Folks are ususually surprised when they see an actual 30x40 Ciba
darkroom print after being accumstomed to inkjets. "Wow- you did that with an 8x10?"
No, that was done with old-school 4x5 film color before it got fine-grained, and one of
my older less acute lenses. 8x10 is a whole other subject.

[Brian Ellis]

Bryant, I would appreciate if you stop disrespecting my name. This is not the first time you made the exact same comment. I prefer privacy, and don't need to explain myself.

I make bigger prints, and are also excellant, and I'm sure Drew and others are doing the same (unless you're an amatuer). I also have a BIG z printer, and don't own it for nothing either (make BIG prints with it). What Cramer says is not final, I got a brain and eyes, and don't jump because he says so. He bought after considering his needs (he doesn't print big like Rodney, Peter Lik, Ken Duncan), and we do the same.Frankly, I wonder if Reichman/Rockwell are related. If you want to compare, then it must be at all print sizes (including huge prints). After all, I still believe that if 80mp is going to replace 8x10, then it better service the same needs up to 10 ft that 8x10 is easily capable of. Ever see a 8-10 ft print (darkroom or digital)...unbelievable, size of a wall, and pretty much grainless. It's like looking at a 24 inch print from 6x7 film, but way bigger. That breathtaking feel would be gone with a DB pulling you down to under 100ppi in the print. Cramers 30 inch prints are too small for comparison for 4x5, 8x10 and 80mp. The 8x10 is just starting to flower and show its stuff at 30 inches. Funny how all the digital guys want to make comparisons at small print sizes that fit within their own 300ppi territory. We all know what happens when that number decreases too far.

Are Reichman/Rockwell related? I don't know Van, but it's certainly a very interesting question for you to raise.

As for the remainder of your message, all I can say is that after reading it several times, paying particular attention to statements such as "I make bigger prints, and are also excellant, and I'm sure Drew and others are doing the same (unless you're an amatuer)" I fully understand your desire for anonymity.

[Brian Ellis]

Bryant made the comment that Cramers 30 inch prints are excellant, and he has a big printer. My point was whoopee, that is not a big enough print for comparison....8x10 only starts to show its strengths at that size, and is easy for most of us to make much larger(except amateurs who often use printers worth $200 or less). I know Cramers reputation for technically excellant prints, and is not at question.

My anonymity I treasure.

It's a big enough print for comparison if that's the largest print size one makes. Not very many people make 10 foot prints so how one camera compares to another at that size is irrelevant to most of us except perhaps as a theoretical matter of interest. But if one of the relative handful of photographers who actually make 10 foot prints thinks 8x10 film is the way to go, more power to him or her.

12x enlargements aren't my thing and weren't my thing even when I was using 8x10 cameras. 4x is about the biggest I go with any format including 8x10 film because after that quality starts deteriorating below what's acceptable to me (and for other practical reasons). Not everyone agrees but that's my own standard. The very few prints from an 8x10 negative that I've seen in the kind of size you've talked about were by Clyde Butcher and they were pretty bad from a technical standpoint (I think his were actually more like 6 feet on the long side and they still weren't technically very good).

I have no problem with anonymity except that IMHO it contributes to the nasty tone of some posts here. There's often a big difference between what one will say when using an alias and when using one's real name.

[Drew Wiley]

I can see the difference even on small prints. But like Brian, I feel that 8x10 generally
optimizes at around 4X, or with really crisp originals, around 6X. But that doesn't make
it inferior to other forms of capture at still bigger print sizes, but only inferior to itself.
Hell, one can shoot 35mm and print a billboard - it's been done plenty of times before.
Where I see the biggest improvement with digital ouput is in MF, whether from scanned
film or direct digital capture. 120 film is easily scratched, doesn't register well, and every little bit or dust or whatever in the sky looks like the Goodyear Blimp, and
is next to impossible to retouch out. With 8x10 those kinds of blemishes are hardly
noticeable, and are relatively easy to retouch by traditional means. There's a reason
the old-time portrait photographers chose 8x10 or 11x14 film, even if they only enlarged it 2x or less. Contact printing is still another story.

[redrockcoulee]

If one was to compare which was better, 8X10 or MFD than would one have to first state what the criteria are? If it was better for the size of prints I make , then is the comparison only going to provide the answer to which is the minimum to fulfill my requirements? Otherwise I could say that medium format film is better than 8X10 because I cannot reduce the 8X10 to the size I print my 120 film to. And that of course makes no sense.

I am thinking back to my wife's project with making 60X85 inch prints and comparing Mf film scanned or using a D3 and the film was the obvious victor. But if we had only used the evaluation done by someone who only printed up to 8X10 we would be no more the wiser as to which was better in so far as a large print went. Of course if the need was for a different aspect of photography my wife's 60X85 inch prints would not show if film was better than digital in low light.