What is Large Format Photography

[Donald Miller]

Since the subject of lens resolution invariably finds it's way into these conversations at some point, and since an individual here recently purported that DSLR lenses could not resolve over 60 LP/MM I thought that it might be appropriate to lnclude this link to the resolution tests on the Canon 85 mm mark II F 1.2 L lens. (One of the L lenses that I use)

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/

[Greg Lockrey]

This is way beyond the scope of this forum. http://www.xrez.com/contact/res_comp.jpg

The contact/res_comp.jpg gets lost if you direct link to the url. You can copy and paste the link to get there directly. Worth the effort.

I'm impressed and I've seen nuclear testing.

[Ole Tjugen]

I fail to see the relevance of DSLR lens resolution to the question here - except that LF lenses don't need to resolve over 60 lppmm.

The picture I linked to can be compared to the one Donald Miller linked to. Note that this is only a scan of the original slide, so to produce the original I used equipment that cost less than $1000 - and a lens that is not exactly famous for its high resolution.

I prefer to keep the term "Large Format Photography" limited to mean "photography with a Large Format camera". There are other ways to making high resolution pictures, or very large files if that is the goal, but they are not Large Format Photography.

[Donald Miller]

This is way beyond the scope of this forum. http://www.xrez.com/contact/res_comp.jpg

The contact/res_comp.jpg gets lost if you direct link to the url. You can copy and paste the link to get there directly. Worth the effort.

I'm impressed and I've seen nuclear testing.

Greg,

You are probably correct that this is beyond the scope of this forum. But please understand that the large print that this link leads you to is eighteen feet by six feet in dimension. Judging from the scale of the other images, I would say that all are represented as being enlarged and not simply the film of the respective formats. This image was made from stitched digitally captured images. My reason for posting this information is to indicate to those who think that digital photography is someone's weak stepchild is simply not true. In fact digital (using what is available today) can far outstrip large format in terms of resolution, tonal distribution, and it can produce prints that are better or I would not be using it.

I certainly don't want my contribution to this matter to be from a position of contentiousness but I would rather it be from the standpoint of informing those who probably don't have all of the information when they make some really contentious and misinformed statements.

I have shot large format for almost thirty years (everything from 4X5 to 12X20). So I am not some new kid on the block when it comes to understanding large format, the use of the camera, and arriving at exhibition quality prints.

That having been said, I will shut up and let the rest that want to contribute in a positive way do so.

[Donald Miller]

I fail to see the relevance of DSLR lens resolution to the question here - except that LF lenses don't need to resolve over 60 lppmm.

The picture I linked to can be compared to the one Donald Miller linked to. Note that this is only a scan of the original slide, so to produce the original I used equipment that cost less than $1000 - and a lens that is not exactly famous for its high resolution.

I prefer to keep the term "Large Format Photography" limited to mean "photography with a Large Format camera". There are other ways to making high resolution pictures, or very large files if that is the goal, but they are not Large Format Photography.

Ole,

If you fail to see the relevance than I am not sure that I can explain it to you, but I will try. If one is using a lens like you used for a large negative it is not even in the same universe that a stitched image can be when you consider that when you stitch digital images you are making segments of the large image with lenses that have pretty incredible resolving ability. Certainly greater than a typical large format lens when you consider enlarging the LF negative.

O.K. I understand your position on large format photography and I respect it. However when one looks at the end result, from your perspective and in your opinion, what does large format have to offer other than tradition? If one is not concerned with the tonal gradations and the resolution of the details within the printed image why in the world would you shoot big film? If that were the case than everyone would be better off buying old 110 film cameras and get to it.

Obviously the reason that most of us shoot or shot LF film was to arrive at the best image possible and that has nothing at all to do with large files as the desired outcome.

[Don Hutton]

Since the subject of lens resolution invariably finds it's way into these conversations at some point, and since an individual here recently purported that DSLR lenses could not resolve over 60 LP/MM I thought that it might be appropriate to lnclude this link to the resolution tests on the Canon 85 mm mark II F 1.2 L lens. (One of the L lenses that I use)

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/

I think you misread what had been typed - he suggested that the SENSOR was not capable of resolving much more than 60 LP/mm, which is simply math based on pixels. You can put a lens capable of resolving 300LP/mm infront of a sensor which is only capable of resolving 50Lp/mm, you're only going to be able to resolve 50Lp/mm...

You perhaps will also notice that in the link you referred to, the resolution test was done on Tech Pan film, not with a DSLR....

[Donald Miller]

I think you misread what had been typed - he suggested that the SENSOR was not capable of resolving much more than 60 LP/mm, which is simply math based on pixels. You can put a lens capable of resolving 300LP/mm infront of a sensor which is only capable of resolving 50Lp/mm, you're only going to be able to resolve 50Lp/mm...

You perhaps will also notice that in the link you referred to, the resolution test was done on Tech Pan film, not with a DSLR....

Don, I was taking the statement for what was said (I was reading the black stuff on the white background)...and it clearly stated lens...not sensor.

I do understand your point.

[D. Bryant]

I propose a new definition of Large Format Photography and ask all to participate.

What does it mean to you? How can we reach an understanding that allows discussion and difference of opinion without flaming each other over those differences?

First off I fully accept the traditional film and view camera definition.

I also consider the following to be part of the new large format.

1. A digital back, 39mp minimum, on a view camera is large format.

2. Stitching captures in post, 150mb minimum, is large format.

3. Output by inkjet, Lambda, or silver halide more than 16" in one dimension is large format.

That's it, what do you think?

First, this thread needs to be moved to Lounge where I won't see it.

Stitching images in my book doesn't define LF (even though I stitch multiple 4x5 scans).

A digital back is a digital back, a large format camera is a large format camera. One doesn't define the other.

Number 3 is totally irrelevant to your premise.

Go out and make photographs instead of contemplating the size of your your navel.

Don Bryant

[Don Hutton]

Don, I was taking the statement for what was said (I was reading the black stuff on the white background)...and it clearly stated lens...not sensor.

I do understand your point.

Well, I just checked back in the "black stuff on the white background" and it clearly states that's the theoretical limit of the resolution of the sensor several times in different places... I'm obviously reading the wrong thread!

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg,

You are probably correct that this is beyond the scope of this forum. But please understand that the large print that this link leads you to is eighteen feet by six feet in dimension. Judging from the scale of the other images, I would say that all are represented as being enlarged and not simply the film of the respective formats. This image was made from stitched digitally captured images. My reason for posting this information is to indicate to those who think that digital photography is someone's weak stepchild is simply not true. In fact digital (using what is available today) can far outstrip large format in terms of resolution, tonal distribution, and it can produce prints that are better or I would not be using it.

I certainly don't want my contribution to this matter to be from a position of contentiousness but I would rather it be from the standpoint of informing those who probably don't have all of the information when they make some really contentious and misinformed statements.

I have shot large format for almost thirty years (everything from 4X5 to 12X20). So I am not some new kid on the block when it comes to understanding large format, the use of the camera, and arriving at exhibition quality prints.

That having been said, I will shut up and let the rest that want to contribute in a positive way do so.

I'm not being contentious either. I think that 18 foot high rez prints are very cool, but this needs to be on a forum type of it's own that's all I'm saying. You have me "keyed" since like I said before I do similar things but on a smaller scale. (I stitch 2x3 FF 35 mm digital to copy art work for life size reproduction.) Just for curiousity, how fast is that Pix-Orb when making images to stitch? Where do you stitch these files this size, I don't think PS can handle 3.8 gig byte files. Is PTGui that good? (I better shut up too, I don't want to raise the dead here.)