High-End Digital Vs. 4x5 Film

[Marko]

This is precisely why I no longer publish my own test results...

You go through enormous effort to control all the variables actually in your control, then admit to those you couldn't control, then post your results AND offer to share your raw files publicly and what do you get? You get idiots picking at every aspect of your test including alluding to your commercial intentions for charging an outrageous $9.95 for a DVD! A DVD that cost you $1 for the blank, takes several minutes of your time to burn and more time to ship. MR is probably netting what, $25 per hour for that effort? I can assure you he makes far more than that when billing at his normal hourly rates -- folks he is providing that DVD as a SERVICE so that all the naysayers could view and process these files on their own specifically to avoid these kind of accusations!

I personally applaud them for taking on the task in the first place -- they already knew how good the P45 was before they embarked on this comparison test and did not have to go through what they did to get the data to you. Given the response, it is unlikely they will ever bother sharing similar tests in the future...

There's people who can only feel great by making other people feel small. They don't seem able to do anything creative and so they spend their time nitpicking on those who can. You can usually tell them by all the vitriol and name calling and when confronted they always respond by turning personal.

As for MR, I admire him for several things - the amount of effort he puts into his site, the amount of his own money he spends doing it and the fact that he's doing it for free (not counting the dvds he sells). If he feels the need to recuperate some of those costs by charging for the access to the original files, I don't see a problem with it. He could have easily refrained from doing it at all or he could have charged for all of it.

If you don't like him for whatever reason, simply don't go to his site and don't read his free articles. Namecalling does nothing to diminish my opinion of him and everything to form an opinion on the name caller.

[Jack Flesher]

As opposed to the idiot who thinks you should take his word and accept the parameters and results as the word of the oracle?

No just the idiots who atempt to bolster a shaky position by finding fault at every turn. As opposed to an individual making VALID criticisms as to methodology. You can easily identify the later: they will almost always reinforce the good aspects of a given experiment while they question their primary point of concern...

PS: It appears you are feeling better -- best wishes for continued imrovement!

[Jack Flesher]

Jack - I understand your frustrations regarding testing, but it's probably not helpful to to the discussion to refer to those who may have criticisms as being idiots. Some of them may be, but the fact that they have criticisms may also be telling.

Good point Ralph. My own experience is driving the use of that word, where more than once my DSLR lens tests were challenged by individuals that didn't own a full-frame camera and my print tests were challenged by people who did not even own a printer. So what other moniker should I give to them that won't offend the PC crowd?

[Ralph Barker]

. . . So what other moniker should I give to them that won't offend the PC crowd?

Just "people"?

Back when I reviewed high-end UNIX workstations and servers for a living, I had my pet names for "those" people, too - often less flattering than "idiot". But, the pet names were shared only with my monitor while reading their e-mails and those within earshot of the lab.

[Marko]

To compare digital to film, for example, the film obviously needs to be scanned. That introduces an additional variable that is not equally applied to both technologies under test. And, if the film is still to be scanned, why choose 1600 or 2500 PPI as the scan resolution? Why not scan at the highest resolution beyond which no additional detail can be extractd from the film? Then, what adjustment should be made for the optics of the scanner? Alternatively, why not examine the film directly under high magnification, and the digital capture at full magnification, to see which resolves better detail? Oops, that introduces different analysis isues on both sides of the comparison, too. Then, there's the question of why interpolate/up-rez one side, but not the other?

If we agree that the print is the ultimate destination of every capture method, then why not produce the best print using the native workflow for each method and then compare the prints?

1. Capture the same scene/object using the same light and the closest possible framing with each capture method. Using the highest capture resolution for digital and the best resolving film for analog is assumed.

2. Limit the post processing of the digital file only to the absolute minimum to get the best possible print. Use printer's optimal resolution and print size.

3. Print from film using native, darkroom workflow to the same print size on the best possible paper.

4. Scan both prints using the same reflection scanner.

This would elliminate most of the variables you mention, but it would still introduce the difference in operators' skill in producing the print as well as differences in equipment (lenses, sensor, film...). Those kinds of variations are inevitable and at some point we need to accept the fact that photography is an art backed by science and technology, after all, not the other way around.

[Ralph Barker]

Comparing prints is a fairly reasonable approach. But, as you said, Marko, the final result depends on the skill of the printer to a large degree. Thus, would it be better to have each printed by a different person who is a "master" in that medium? And, that approach leaves open the question of how large the prints should be. Then, how much of the comparison is related to the nature of the print, and how much is related to the capture medium itself?

Ultimately, I think the question still boils down to the fact that those who find the digital workflow beneficial to what they are doing, and can find a way to afford the equipment, will prefer that method. Those who find film better-suited for what they do, will still choose film. While the two technologies fill similar end goals, they tend to fit different sets of requirements and/or objectives. As such, a direct comparison of just the final output (the prints) can't tell the whole story.

If the question is whether to choose a beautiful blonde or a gorgeous brunette, the obvious answer is, "Yes!" Which, however, is a matter of personal preference.

[Marko]

Ralph,

Yes, absolutely.

This is realy a non-issue for professionals, at least those with healthy business models - the market will make the choice for them. As for the rest of us, those who find digital more to their liking will go digital if they can afford it. The rest will stick with film. And some will dable a little in each.

Personally, I don't think a really objective comparison is possible at all. There's too many variables and too many vested interests and too many preferences involved. But damn, does it make for lively discussions!

[Eric Leppanen]

Well, after starting this thread (I didn't have time to offer any opinion on the LL article so I just posted the link) I headed out on a trip for several days (without any web access), and have just gotten back. Of course I had to check in to see how the thread was doing. Digital versus film is always good for some anarchy, but 116 posts in just four days, with Michael Reichmann venting on this web site over the things being said here?? Yikes! I never knew posting a link could be so much fun!

What I find amazing is why folks aren't just happy that single-shot digital capture has now (more or less) reached 4x5 image quality, giving the photographic artist another potential weapon in their equipment arsenal. Whether there is a small resolution difference remaining is irrelevant for most applications, as most observers won't notice the difference in real world prints. Unlike film cameras and even DSLR's, MF digital is still in its early stages and much work remains to be done in camera bodies, backs, lenses, software, and yes, even comparative evaluations. If you perceive errors in the reviewers' methodology, by all means call them out, but don't question people's integrity when there is not a single whit of justifying evidence. Michael Reichmann recently bought $50K+ worth of MF digital hardware, to be used as much as possible in lieu of his Canon DSLR. So much for being in Canon's pocket. IIRC Bill Atkinson retired from a senior position at Apple before the tech bubble burst, so I presume he is financially loaded. He doesn't need to be an advocate for any particular photographic company. And if you question his photographic skills, check out his web site at www.billatkinson.com. C'mon guys, get real!

That $30K MF digital back of today will cost less -- maybe a lot less -- than $10K in two years, as new players in the marketplace emerge and cut-throat competition (rather than long, drawn out product development cycles) increasingly dictates pricing strategies. I'd personally love to immediately verify that my shots were successful, rather than having to wait until film is processed before I can see the results.

So from my perspective the Reichmann/Atkinson/Cramer comparison succeeded in giving a ballpark idea of where digital technology is currently at. Photokina this fall should be very interesting, with new products expected from Canon, Schneider, Mamiya and others. Color film will hopefully be around for a very long time, yet it would be naive to bet the farm on that given the difficult economics facing that industry. My concern is that adequate, cost-effective high-end digital solutions be available to us should color film eventually expire. We need to encourage the developers and reviewers working in high-end digital, not gratuitously attack them over debatable portions of their methodology.

[Neal Shields]

The one thing all of these "tests" seem to have in common is that they avoid photographing anything quantifiable, like an airforce test target.

Much of the exhaustively researched litature, such as "Image Clarity" shows how and why "sharpness" is in the eye of the beholder, where as information content is not.

Even with old darkroom techniques, if you had the information you could manipulate it to look sharper. Now with scanning and photoshop, if you have the information you can do almost anything with it.

The only thing you can't do with modern computer enhansement is create information that was lost at the time of capture.

For that reason, I can't see any use in tests that don't measure and quantify information content.

[palantiri7]

$50k? >gulp< And here I thought 8x10 transparency film was expensive. I wish I could see a large print done with the P45 and compare it to a large print from my 8x10. But I live in da bush, so it might be a while. Then again, I don't think it will make a difference; I just like working with film. I'm getting tired of being viewed as an out-of-sync odd-ball on a photography forum at home, though.