Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

  1. #1
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

    I continue to watch developements in digital to see if there is something I am missing. This morning I had coffee with a young competitor who wanted to pick my brain and show me some images. His is all digital capture from a Kodak DCS Pro (14 MP full chip) and Nikon lenses. I am still shooting film in a view camera but scanning the film. He had some very competent and beautiful images but....

    My brief impressions were these:

    There are still problems with blown out highlights in light sources and posterization in deep shadows compared to my scanned film method.

    Perceived sharpness is comparable up to 11x14 then beyond that scanned film has a definite advantage. Upresing does not compete with a good scan.

    Mixed lighting latitude and ability to white balance (grey with film) is comparable to NPS and NPL.

    Allot of problems in dim light and long exposures with noise and artifacts. For instance when doing twilight shots.

    He says he is not using PC lenses because the radical light angle causes noise along the edges. But the PS perspective correction, when it stretches the image more than about 1/3 of the frame width causes some odd interpolation issues. So the use of very wide angle non-PC lenses which require allot of perspective correction in PS has serious drawbacks too. There was also some evidence of ballooning distortion.

    And everthing still has that crappy overly-smooth midtone transitions that sceam out at you that this is digital capture!!!

    Now granted some of this could be fixed in PS but at what time costs?

    It still appears to me that for architecture, view cameras and film still have a significant edge.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  2. #2

    Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

    First off, keep in mind that the 14MP Kodak is a true piece of garbage. At low (160) ISO, there is horrible noise in shadow areas. In spite of what many say, there is still an issue with a painterly look to fine detail like foliage due to Bayer processing, aliasing and noise reduction employed on board. As well, don't forget about the ever present moire. These problems can be reduced a great deal in ACR....however, they are still present.

    Now keep in mind, the Kodak is not meant to be competing with 4x5. Anyone who says otherwise has never compared 16x20 or larger prints. The Kodak was designed to compete with 35mm and 645 film....and to a lesser extent 6x7.

    This said, in spite of the lower resolution offered by the Canon 1DS, I found the 1DS to offer more natural looking images. I honestly cannot recommend the Kodak.

    If you need high quality digital capture, you'll need a 22MP back from Mamiya, or Sinar, or Imacon, etc. Or, depending on your targets, a Better Light digital back will give better detail than even your 4x5.

    Different tools for different things.....but the Kodak will not stand up to 4x5, nor was it meant to.

  3. #3
    bob carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario,
    Posts
    4,939

    Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

    Hi Kirk

    I would be interested to hear your observations , if you did the comparisons with capture from 4x5 with a phase back???
    Good quality lenses , captured with the same taking lenses and photographer onto film and then digital.

    I think the digital capture would be more close to your liking.

    I just made a digital fibre off a hasselblad with phase , 20inch x 20 inch . the quality was very good.
    I have printed for this photographer for years, traditionally and now digitally, the quality level has not seem to dimish. This fellow is quite good at what he does .

    I do think you should compare same quality of lenses, light, and technique. I still prefer traditional but I can grudgingly see a great improvement in digital capture.

  4. #4
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

    A couple of responses:

    I have another competitor here who uses the Canon. I have not looked closely at his work as we are not close friends. But....we have some mutual magazine clients here and nationally and the clients prefer film hands down. They will only use digital files if they have no choice.

    As for the Phase One. I have not tested one in two years and two years ago I thought it was not ready for a hard days work. The current ones look improved but we are talking $20 to $30,000 just for a back that is likely to be obselescent in 2 to 3 years? Ouch? That's allot of Starbucks.

    The big boys, who have the budjets to justify that kind of expenditure (Hedrich-Blessing, Timothy Hursley, Peter Aaron etc.), are playing with digital capture but still shooting film. Things may change in the future but right now in the real world of architectural photography, film seems to still rule.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  5. #5

    Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

    I'm a total newbie at this whole LF thing [see 'wacko' posts] so take my comments with a grain of salt but while researching about LF photography, I discovered that lots of photographers were still using their dslr's for lots of things but were also dusting off their LF gear, using it again in commercial applications. It seems that there is a trend going on and film is enjoying a comeback [again among digital fotogs]. Digital has come a long, long way... maybe now it has the reached the quality that we currently enjoy, the novelty has worn off.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

    I end up doing a lot of architectural-like photos for advertising clients. When it is quick, dirty, or no budget, I use my D70. When I can do it right, I use 4x5 and a Noblex. The cheapskates and crappy little jobs that demand digital can't tell the difference between a good D70 file or a 1Ds file - so why not keep the several thousand dollar difference in your pocket?

    I like the D70 a lot. But I went back to a Leica RF for baby and fun shots too.

  7. #7

    Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

    I have seen a resurgence of old customers of mine that went digital, now coming back to my lab with good 'ol b&w film! I haven't asked why, but my guess is that spending all that time in front of their computers just wasn't generating the $$$/time they were used to. Not to mention the quality prints we produce just plain look better.

  8. #8

    Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

    I had been shooting almost exclusively digital for the past 4 yrs. I went to an Eastman House exibit here in Seattle. Looking at those 20x24 albuman contacts dropped my jaw. I can't remember when I saw ranges like that. Said to myself right then and there time to bang some silver. Pulled out the wizner and went to get some film. I shot APX 100, not here any more. I just wanted to go out and shoot, not do speed and developing test. Ended up being a good thing as it made me do a tighten up on my standards. With digital I was starting get a little lax, not paying attention to brightness ratios and such. I really enjoy getting back into the dicipline of shooting view. I had forgot how much fun the process, not just the result, was. I'm retired so I don't have to please anybody but me. I know I'm not alone here at this board when I say it's much easier to please others than myself. My new definition of stress is trying to print 30 yrs of coldlight diffused contrast index negs on my new (to me ) bessler 45v-xl. So I guess if I had my old film I would still be out there keying the negs to the new enlarger. That's why I'm going back to film. Thanks for letting me ramble on. John Berry

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Besançon, France
    Posts
    1,617

    Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

    There is an interesting comparison by Henri Gaud (a French architecture photographer) between shots of the same scene taken with :

    - a Canon 1Ds 11Mpix with TS-E 24 mm lens
    - a 6x8 Fuji with retrofocus 50 mm lens on colour slide film
    - an Alpa 12 with the 55 mma apo-grandagon on same film

    Film scanned with a Imacon 848.
    Se the images here (the text in in French)
    http://www.galerie-photo.com/test-gaud.html

    At the time when the test was done (May 2003) the scanned MF film recorded with the alpa + apo-grandagon 55 was clearly the winner... but the Canon did an excellent job already.


  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Posts
    1,094

    Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

    This may be a little off the architecture topic, but another issue with digital, in my opinion, is where is the truth? By that I mean, with digital so many wholesale, seamless changes can be made to a digital image that you can't really trust what you're seeing. Granted, you can make changes to silver prints, but not with the almost magical ease of digital. You can look at an organic piece of film and see the true thing right there.

Similar Threads

  1. Print size chart when using digital capture
    By Eric Leppanen in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 30-Apr-2006, 16:10
  2. Digital Capture & Standard LF Lenses
    By neil poulsen in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 4-Feb-2005, 14:47
  3. Need digital camera for architecture w/shift wide-angle
    By Sandy Sorlien in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 17-Jan-2004, 11:53
  4. Pushing film to capture the Leonids Meteor Shower
    By Graeme in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 16-Nov-2001, 13:08
  5. 4x5 field stability of digital capture?
    By Ted Daughety in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 18-Dec-1998, 18:08

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •