Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

[Steve Daniels]

They're all tools. Use the right tool for the right job. You can use an axe to open a can of beans, but a can opener works better.

I have 8x10, 4x5, 35mm and a digital SLR, and I don't shoot action with 8x10. I do shoot digital along with LF because it is convenient and gives me a record of what will be on the film after development. When I print the 30x40, you can bet it's not from the 6MP D100 file.

Digital has one unanticipated benefit over 35mm. When I shoot a telephoto shot with flash, the image is remarkably sharp. Although digital will never really appear sharper than film (NO MATTER HOW MANY MEGAPIXELS) because of the random shape of grain vs. the rectangular shape of pixels (you can hide a random shape in camoflage, but a rectangle stands out because of its regular shape), flash stops the rectangular pixels in their tracks, but a slight movement of grain stands out as a blur over the entire image.

Use the tools that you have for the appropriate job at hand. You will never see 8x0 used for Sports Illustrated, but you will usually see LF used for DuPont Registry (Fine Automotive publication). THAT'S what will set you apart from an an amateur photographer. Knowing what to use to get the desired result.

Remember - You will never see a Holga with a Polaroid back!

[David A. Goldfarb]

The Holgaroid--


http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=5957

[Steve Daniels]

I spoke too soon! The Holgaroid will not become part of my arsenal. There's not enough room in my bag.

[Matt Wensing]

One 'problem' I have with the suggestions about digital overtaking MF or even LF (whenever it happens) is ignoring the relative cost. Leaf digital backs are still in the $20-30k range; I'm going to go out on a limb and say that digital that rivals LF will not be mainstream in my lifetime--I simply don't see the demand, given that 90% of the 'photographing population'--the most basic amateurs included, are content with small prints (8x10 max).

I think any discussion of the 'state of the art' has to take cost into account. Otherwise we could ooh and ahh over some $6 billion government/NASA/CIA project producing a camera capable of resolving every grain of sand in Baghdad. But who cares? Can anyone else afford to have and use it? And will real art only be made by those people that own it?

I got my Toyo 45AX with a Rodenstock lens off eBay last February for $1200. Digital has a long way to go before it makes bang-for-the-buck sense for all but the total professionals. Even the company I work for has a digital back for their MF camera but it's considered a waste of money given our needs. As Steve said, the right tool for the right job . . .

[Scott Fleming]

Mat,

Eggs Ackley! Maybe in three years an amateur such as we could pick up today's 22MP stand alone back for say ... six or seven k. Even that price is a lot of cash for something that only offers convenience over 4 x 5 film. Especially given that by then the state of the art backs will be probably 50MP ... although most probably selling for about what they are selling for now.

I have given up on any idea of digital capture for fine art work. It's a lost cause unless one has unlimited funds or a big enough buisness to write off the costs.

[Andy Andrews]

Since the "Digital Revolution", I've seen the quality of the photographic illustrations in most of my favorite magazines go 'round the bowl and down the hole', so to speak. It was a great source of delight to me to see the tv documentary on the production of this year's SPORTS ILLUSTRATED Swimsuit Issue. Walt Iooss Jr was shooting his redoubtable RZ II, another team shot the Pentax 67 and a third a 4x5! None of these worthies used anything resembling a digital back. They all had Polaroid backs for final checks. I note, too, that the NEW YORKER is still relying on hopelessly old-fashioned film for its most important full-page spreads. One of the problems with digital capture, speaking as a retired paid consultant to the photo industry, is the inability of ccds or cmos is render flesh tones accurately. A fudge is to maximize saturation when scanning, but this introduces other problems. Since the vast majority of consumer snaps are of people, a weakness of this magnitude could spell an APS-like demise of digital - at least at the consumer level. I note (at the grassroots level) the frenzy of acquisition of digital doodads has cooled considerably amongst my friends and acquaintances and one-time use film cameras are making a comeback at the neighborhood drugstore. Another problem the electronic appliance industry flacks would rather you didn't consider is the nature of human perception. The human eye has an average acuity of approximately 75 megapixel equivalent. The digital industry has said that they can meet that criterion. What they cannot do, regardless of mexapixel density, is eliminate our subliminal pattern perception. Perception is far more than
the ability to discern line pairs per millimeter or contrast, it involves a complex mind/eye feedback loop which helped our ancient ancestors survive by allowing only those able to spot the striped cat moving in the shadows or the deadly snake along the trail to escape and pass on their genetic uniqueness. The rectilinear array of sensors in digital capture produces an impression that 'something is not quite right' in the brain. And that is probably what you digital camera enthusiasts are thinking about me right now!

[Randy_5067]

"They're all tools. Use the right tool for the right job. You can use an axe to open a can of beans, but a can opener works better."

This pretty much sums up everything in this posting. Answers all the questions as to which is better. In the magazine ads, news, advertising, what is the audience they are playing to? And in that audience, if they shot the entire set with a 2MP digi, would more than 2% of them know or notice the difference? The big advantage that I have seen with digi is time. And that, folks, is what most of this is about. Do more quicker so you have time to do more. Don't get me wrong, I love my large format films, but if I were being paid for a photo-spread that I know would never be under close scrutiny for clarity or sharpness, would I shoot film, develop, scan, print, or would I shoot and print digi? Hmmm let me think.. 1 hour, or several hours for the same money..... High definition architectural where sharpness and clarity are essential, use film. Ad lay-out where 90 percent of the audience and/or the customer would never know the diff and could care less if you did take the time to explain? Digi. Time.

[Bill_1856]

So, what's your point?