My take on the Cramer tests were that the difference in detail was substantial, not slight. The digital images seem to just run out of detail and give you a blobbiness, whereas the film scan seems to have more and more detail available and could withstand even greater magnification.
I think when you have a digital back that is more in the 60 megapixel range, then you'll be able to say that there is no difference in resolution between 4x5 and high res digital.
If for any reason one needs to use digital for production purposes that is clearly what must be done.
However, the idea that "1DS III vs, Leaf 22 & 33MP Backs or Hasselblad 39MP" can compete with 4X5 LF at large print sizes is just pure BS. In fact, these systems can not even compete with high quality MF up to about 33 X 43". Not even close.
I am attaching a crop of a scan that I recently made of a 6X7cm format negative, shot on Fuji Acros. The negative was made with a Mamiya 7II with 65mm lens at f/11. The scan was done at 5080 spi, fluid mounted, with a Leafscan 45 that delivers effective resolution of about 80-90 lines/mm. The full image is also attached.
The crop, which is shown at 5"X5", is from a 1" square part of the original scan, which measures 33X43" at 350 spi, which gives a file of approximately 316 mp. In other words, if you were looking at a full size print from the original file it would measure 165X215" in size.
When a digital back or digital camera can come close to this kind of quality I will consider giving up film. Until that time high quality MF has many advantages, both cost and quality, over anything digital.
Sandy King
Originally Posted by Gordon Moat
I didn't miss the point at all. With insufficient dynamic range, you CANNOT get the shadows and the highlights in the same image. I said nothing about "better" image, I said you can get the shadow and highlight detail in one image. With sufficient dynamic range, I can expose for the highlights and still have detail in the shadows.
Top level shooters have been using ND grad filters and multiple scan exposures for quite some time. If the DR was there to start with, they wouldn't have had to do that.
I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty getting this. Would you like to capture the image in 1 shot, or 2 or 3? It's that simple.
I think you better read the article again. Here is his followup:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_28/essay.html
Looking at the difference between the film and digital at 40", it wasn't any big deal. In fact, he said he was happy with it.
I agree though, based upon what I got testing a 48mp non-bayer Betterlight Back, I'd say that 4x5 is pretty much met, at any print size, with about 55mp to 60mp. In other words, about 1 generation of development away.
Have you ever used a P45 or Betterlight? Have you made direct comparisons? I think it's quite obvious in Cramers samples here:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_28/essay.html
That at 43", your MF rig would be spanked by the P45.
David,
Have you compared a Betterlight to a high quality MF system?
If you have not you are pretty ignorant to suggest that a high quality MF rig would be spanked by the P45.
BTW, I read the comparison by Cramer, and looked carefully at the samples. It seems clear to me that the 4X5 film in terms of quality is quite superior to the P45.
And I love that comment by Cramer that digital has more dynamic range than film! No way, unless you are thinking of merging HDR images or making multiple static passes with the digital back.
Let me say again, in the crop from the scan of the Mamiya 7II Acros negative you are looking at equivalent print size of 165" X 215", with file size of about 316 mp, where the resolution of the camera lens, film, and scan are 80-90 lines/mm. Do you really believe that a 39 mp digital back can come close to that quality in an image of about 35X45"?
Sandy
Here we are again. Film vs Digital. The first question, and the only real important one is "What do you want to do with the image?" What kind of print do you want to make? It all comes down to purpose.
If what you want to do is make a good print, then digital, especially at 39mgpxl is fine. If you want to make a great print, well, maybe you can and maybe you can't. One doesn't need a great print for commercial work, just a good one. Of course, that's my definition of a great print, so no need for any commercial folks to feel slighted.
For comparison, I get 320 megapixels off of a 4x5 (at 4000 ppi/spi/dpi). When I convert this to black and white, with good film I get three-dimensional results. Doesn't happen, won't happen with a digital camera until they get over 100. When they do I will rush over there in a hot minute.
I saw a Ted Harris image in the latest View Camera magazine. He was comparing one thing or another, I don't remember. (I think my brain was a little fried after the Scheimpflug article.) The key thing was that I looked at the print he had of a woman as an example. Frankly, I don't want to make a print like that. Nothing wrong with his choice, it just isn't the same as mine, aesthetically. He's right for him. But when I look at taking his advice I have to take what he is trying to accomplish into consideration.
Digital is great for a lot of things, almost all commercial work, prints where the fog rising off a lake isn't a critical part of the image. I am interested in printing with a lot of subtlety so it isn't right for me - a drum scanner and large film is the only way to go. I can't allow myself to care how much it costs.
Lenny
Charles Cramer told me last April that, for a 24x30" digital print, his P45 is as good as 4x5" film. For 30x40" prints, the 4x5 gives slightly more resolution, but the P45 print is still quite good. This is all in the context of comparing color prints, and not B&W. I don't know if his thinking has changed since that time.
Well, yes, here we go again. But here I agree with you 100%.
For ultimate print quality in large sizes how can anyone imagine that a 39mp digital back will give equivalent quality at large print sizes to one of your 329 mp scans of a 4X5" negative at 4000 spi, or to a 316 mp scans of 6X7 cm format at 5080? That is just plain dumb thinking IMO.
Sorry David and others, it ain't happening.
Now, if you want to take print size back down to 12X18" we could all wallow in the same hole. Even the 35mm film guys with drum scans could roll in the mud with us.
Sandy King
Did you REALLY read it Sandy. He states NOTHING of the sort. To quote Cramer "I have confidence now that I can make a 40x60 inch print from my P45 that will be quite comparable to what 4x5 film can offer. "
I don't need to post a MF sample as if the P45 is virtually the same as the 4x5, then how can your MF be better. Have you found a MF rig that now does better than 4x5. I'd love to see it.
Here they are again. Are you telling me the 4x5 blows away the P45? If the 4x5 is this close to the P45, where does that leave your MF rig? Look at both on your screen at the same time. Reduce them to 50% and tell me the 4x5 blows away the P45. The seriously look at your MF rig with 1/4 the film area and think again.
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw...s_4x5-film.jpg
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw...ves_P45_RD.jpg
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks