Briot chucks 4x5 for digital

[Steve J Murray]

Judging from the examples in the article, this guy Briot is producing" decorative art." This is not the "fine art" a modern museum would be interested in. People buying this stuff are also buying "duck prints" and other types of decorative art I would think. He explains thoroughly enough why his work flow is better with a digital set up. Makes sense to me. He has faster turn around, less cost not drum scanning, and he can get more prints out on his web site faster. Its a commercial set up, and he's not trying to create "fine art." His buying audience is probably not discriminating enough going to notice the difference either, so why should he bother doing it any other way? I can see why some people on this forum would rather use film and even make pt/pd prints. I see that arising from a different purpose and goal for their photography. Lets not mix apples and oranges. Digital has its advantages for a lot of things. That's my take on it.

[QT Luong]

One thing to keep in mind is that appearance on the print is often quite different from the appearance on a 100% pixel crop (that's the reason why, for instance, it is so difficult to apply the optimum amount of USM). Brian, I have to agree with you that the 11x14 image shows an advantage for the 4x5. However, trust me, that's not the best the 1Ds2 can do, for several reasons. The light was better on the 4x5 image. Many people would agree that the lens used on the 1Ds2 is not among Canon's best. Moreover, this lens is stopped down to f22, where the CoC exceeds the sensor spacing, and MTF50 drops below 30 cycles/mm for every lens (for reference, a 50/1.4 at medium apertures produces a MTF50 above 50cycles/mm). Last, indeed the color and contrast natively produced by the 1Ds2 are both exceedingly flat compared to a transparency film. It doesn't look like Alain applied the strong S-curve and high-radius USM needed to compensate for that. The 1Ds2 file has also a rather low accutance, yet much stronger sharpening was applied to the 4x5 scan.

[QT Luong]

Steve, "fine art" is not really a factor .With the exception of the trend introduced by Gursky, Struth, and other photographers of the same school of thought, where the size is an integral part of the final presentation, in general art photographs are not particularly remarkable for their large size. Also, in general, making color images of landscapes without the presence of man disqualifies you from modern museums.

As for my initial reaction that he didn't abandon 4x5, see
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=6161bff153a650955c2a7719d528f780;act=ST;f=12;t=673
"This being said I have not stopped shooting 4x5, nor will I stop until there is a digital solution which enables me to get the same (or better) level of detail. For big enlargements, 4x5 is what I shoot."

[Keith Laban]

Far too many people are worrying far too much about how images are made rather than why.

[Doug Dolde]

There seem to be a lot of angry people here. Is this just a way to vent it? Who cares what someone else uses.

[David Luttmann]

Brian,

Do you realize that even a crop from a 300 dpi original to 72 dpi screen makes it the equivalent of a print about 5 feet wide. Honestly, the pixel peeping people do gets to be a bit much! You will not see a difference on an 11x14 print from 4x5 to the Canon. At that size, you're looking at an output greater than 300 dpi from the digital capture....any more is a waste as no matter what you think, your eyes just aren't that good....especially from a couple of feet away.

Part of the problem is people thinking that a screen load is the same as the printing load......when it isn't. If you make prints that are 5 feet wide on a regular basis, then I agree, 4x5 gives you a great edge. If you're doing 11x14 or 16x20 as your main printing, then there is little to nothing to be gained.

And as far as comparing camera costs......I guess you must be getting your film and processing for free and you haven't included that in your equation. For my shooting, I used to spend in excess of $9,000 a year in film and processing, for just color work alone. So, spending $8000 once for a camera that pays for itself in one year seems a great deal to me!

If I need a 32x40 or greater, then I use MF or 4x5, for everything else, there's digital.

[Brian C. Miller]

Dave, I have my own Jobo. It works great for color & B&W processing. Since I do a lot of pushing, its the only way I get a three stop push with color.

OK, I just finished printing out an 11x14 print of the full image using an Epson 2200 with photo lustre roll paper. Using what Briot posted on the web site for the full image, on the print the cropped comparison area measures about 1-1/4h x 1w inch. That is 1/11th the width of the print. I can easily note that the detail which is shown on the web site would be more than evident on the real print.

I have a four foot panorama of downtown Seattle that was scanned in from a 645 with E100S at 3200dpi (courtesy Ivey Seright). The detail just keeps on going, even when the print is only 13-in. wide. Therefore, the whole "pixels-schmixels, stand away from it" argument doesn't wash with me. People are impressed by detail. They get up close to my print, and comment very favorably about its detail. I don't see detail in the Canon shot. Like Luong wrote, perhaps the Canon wasn't used at its full potential. I don't know, and digital cameras are not my area of expertise.

I do understand that the camera may be an excellent economic business decision. Great! I do understand the business economics. If it meets your needs, excellent. However, I'd like to note that for $9,000/yr in film & developing, a Hasselblad H1D digital camera is $22,000 and sports 22Mpixels and would pay for itself in 2-1/2 years, and the quality is probably better than Canon. Wouldn't that be a better investment still?

I'm not saying that the Canon camera can't compete with 4x5, its just that based on what I see, I'm not impressed, and I'm not investing in it.

[Quentin Bargate]

Alain Briot is not abandoning LF for digital. Indeed he told me he was shocked by the difference in resolution between the 1Ds II and LF. He will continue to use both. He won't invest in a 22mp back because LF is still a lot better.

As far as immediacy is concerned, my 4x5 lab will turn around development in 1.5 hours, and as I drum scan my own LF, I can get same-day results. But like Alain, I mix digital (Kodak 14nx) with LF, and there are undoubtably many shots that would be missed if one only had LF available. I'm actualy drifting back to shooting more LF for quality reasons. The day may come when I abandon film altogether, but I expect I'll need around 33MP or more in an affordable format before I do. I love my 14nx - the quality is outstanding - but LF remains the king for the time being.

Quentin

[Brian Ellis]

I couldn't help noticing how many people here seem to equate 4x5 with "quality" (and, at least by inference, digital with "non-quality"). IMHO the equipment used doesn't automatically generate quality or non-quality photographs. That's mostly up to the photograher and how he or she uses the equipment in question. There are plenty of horrible photographs , both aesthetically and technically, made with all sorts of equipment. There also are a relative handful of excellent photographs made with all sorts of equipment, including digital equipment. Neither film nor digital produces inherently "better" photographs (nor is either inherently "archival" or "non-archival," prints made in a darkroom can fade, discolor, etc. just as quickly as photographs made any other way).

[David Luttmann]

Brian Miller,

Don't pull stuff off the web...do your own testing like I did. I can tell you right now that on an Epson 2200, at 11x14, the digital source captures more than 300 DPI.....which is greater than the rez your printer truly outputs well. Thus, there is NO way that the 4x5 source could show more detail. If the printer can't output more than about 300DPI, the both sources will look the same. The printer is the weak link in your example. I've done my comparisons at 11x14 on both inkjet and lightjet. So please, don't try an sell me on the fact that your eyes can pull more detail off the paper than about 300 dpi.....because you're fighting a loosing battle there! Human eyesight is just not that good!

As I said, if people are looking with a loupe, then great! I find that most viewing distances for 16x20 seem to be around 18" to 2 feet and up.

So please, stop pulling thumbnails off the web trying to do tests. I've done them with my original 1DS for 11x14, and it holds up quite well. Get some of the gear, rent it, borrow it, and see for yourself.

I noted you offered an opinion of the two prior to even completing your web test. Might I suggest in the future, you test before you offer an opinion.