Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 155

Thread: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

  1. #121

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    781

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    > I don't think anyone should buy, lease, nor rent a MFDB based upon anything other than meeting your needs;

    > Academic analysis is interesting, but .....


    It seems all these threads through the years follow a similar pattern. They go something like this.....


    1) A question about resolution between film formats, digital, scanners, etc.

    2) some math to explain the differences

    3) Disputing the math from real world results (of course all the relative details are rarely provided)

    4) The math naysayers (artist) jump in..... Photography is not about math, "just go take pictures" !!!

    5) Justification of all the options often by personal experience..

    Then, usually a final...

    6) None of this matters, you have to test everything to see what meets your needs.


    To the newbie, and to even some pros who don't obsess over the numbers, these threads have to generate a lot of "head shaking" , i.e. total confusion, and rightfully so.... to that end, I would like to offer the following....

    1) Many people use this information to attempt to make "buy" decisions for their photography. It's unfortunate, but most of this equipment is not available to be tested side by side. This specially applies to equipment such as scanners which are no longer made.


    2) While math will often NOT give you ever final detail about a given comparison, in certain areas it can define the physical limits of what's possible. In most cases, this will get you in the ballpark, vs. without the math, you will be in "the wrong continent." This is significant, but is often completely dismissed because there is so many variables at play within a comparison, analysis can never be 100% accurate, in which case, many people assume it's better to "throw the baby out with the bath water". IMO, this is a mistake. I rather get "close to" an answer vs. "have no clue".


    3) Unfortunately, in these comparisons, "the devil is in the details". And often these details are not available in forum threads. Gordon touched on this above, but I would like to expand on this... by simply altering 3 "user controlled variables" - changing the apt. of a taking lens, film type / format, and the scanner used to scan the film, I can demonstrate:

    a) Large Format Film will out resolve a MF back

    b) MF back can out resolve LF film.


    Both can be true under a given set of variables. Unfortunately, you must dig into the details to get to these variables. Many of these variables surfaced throughout this thread, size of format, film type, lenses used, DOF, f stop, color of subject, MP's, up rez potential, scanner quality, etc.

  2. #122

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    1,851

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Moat View Post
    Q. Can you get a very nice large print from 4x5 or 8x10?
    A. Yes

    Q. Can you use one of the latest MFDBs to get a nice large print?
    A. Yes
    Maybe, in color. I am not that interested in "very nice". I am interested in very specific qualities.

    I think that in a decent size, say up to 40 inches, in black and white, that I just haven't seen the capability from any digital capture. I'm talking about a museum quality print, with tons of richness, that a gravure printer, say a Paul Strand, would be proud of. I'm more interested in tonality than resolution and certainly depth of field vs critical sharpness. Just my thing...

    In response to aluncrockford, all due respect and all, I wouldn't trust what agencies want - they are mostly non-technical, non-photographers, and have no idea of what they are talking about. It's been a very long time since those people were craftspeople.

    For commercial work, it's there with all everyone needs. If I was doing commercial work I would use whatever digital fit the bill for the work I was asked to do. I don't do commercial work and don't really want to and my priorities are therefore different...

    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  3. #123

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    hi,

    there is an easy and inexpensive way for you to test our own scanner .. just buy a USAF 1951 test chart on film (will cost you about 50 euros) which goes up to group 7 .. did that with the lanovia .. max resolution for me is in the range of 50 to 55 lps/mm .. this means that you can with your nose close up still will have your 5 line pairs per mm .. the picture/print will be critically sharp at all viewing distances .. and 4x5 will give you a 40x50 print.... greater viewing distances do not even require those about 2500 ppi .. such a simple test will tell you what your specific equipment can deliver ... and actual 2500 ppi is quite a lot .. btw Fuji with reference to the lanovia and max optical resolution speaks of 2500 ppi in case of halftone and 5300 if line art.

    just my 2 ..


    joerg

  4. #124

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    Mostly I agree with Lenny, despite that I do commercial work. My art endeavors are often low resolution (oil paintings and Polaroid manipulations). However, I have the benefit of being near the Museum of Photographic Arts most of the year, and I get to see many examples of fine art photography. The presence of MOPA also drives a small community of art photographers, largely under two groups representing many people both digitally and film based. The digital group is largely composed of people in their 50s or older, while some younger individuals make up the other group. So I get to see a ton of prints from all different types of gear, all year round.

    The best prints I have ever seen were Edward Burtynsky's images. Many of those were from 4x5 colour negative, a few from 8x10, and some were not printed from an enlarger. These were RA-4 process prints, and not inkjet. I have never seen any inkjet prints come close. These have been (so far) the absolute best colour prints I have ever seen, though a few Andreas Gursky prints come very close.

    In very large B/W prints, I saw some David Fokos prints that were quite amazing. I was surprised that they were C-Prints, and not silver gelatin. They were vastly better than the large prints in the Annie Leibowitz exhibit I saw at the San Diego Museum of Fine Art.

    When you see the best out there, that draws comparison to every other printed image you will see later. I fail to be impressed by the quality of inkjet prints, though I have seen some amazing and compelling images printed that way. Mount inkjet prints in a sandwich under glass (or lucite/plexi), and it gets tougher to tell it apart from C-Prints, but not impossible.

    One trend I have noticed is sharpening, and often to the point of over-sharpening. This makes sense when you consider that many doing these prints are in their 50s or older, and their eyesight is not as good as it was in the past. Sharpened prints will look better to older people, even if the resolution is not as good. This is more of a trend in post processing and printing, though unfortunately too often used to compare prints and images.

    On a given day, with a given set of gear, one photographer can do better than another. The difference is less down to the gear, and more down to the ability to work within the limits of the gear. This is all that gear matters, in that is does not get in your way, nor hinder your creative vision. Give a hack the most expensive gear on the planet, and they will still be a hack.

    We have far better gear choices now than the revered photographers of the past, yet we struggle to create more compelling image than they accomplished. Buying another piece of gear will not elevate any of us above their level.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat Photography

  5. #125

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    781

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    If soft image is the photographers intent, then these techno threads are senseless to those type of artist. Softness in an image is easy to achieve, specially within PS. The basis of these threads are often to examine how to maximize sharpness through gear and technique...this is when techno mumbo jumbo has a home and often where gear plays a VERY significant role to achieve such.


    Interesting take on all the prints you have viewed, what a nice treat to see so much fine photographic art. As you know though, all this discussion was not about printing, but rather getting "to the point of printing", a HUGE distinction. As you point out, printing is the final expression of the image, and the offerings do vary tremendously today, vs. yesteryear.


    > This is all that gear matters, in that is does not get in your way, nor hinder your creative vision.


    I would disagree with generalizations like this. If someones goal is to make a tack sharp 70" print of a non static scene.... I would suggest a photog with a 8x10" view camera, or a high end MF back would have a much better chance of meeting their objectives, vs. if they had a mini digicam. The end product should drive the gear choice. I realize I exaggerated a situation to make a point... but... Since most hobbiest do not have the ability to own "all" the gear, it makes sense to analyze what type of final images you want to achieve, and work backwards from there.


    But of course, more gear or better gear won't radically change the skill of the artist to capture a scene, this is a different animal. But with the advent of digital, and the sense of, "every capture is free", I have seen many elevate the quality of their output.... why? Because where they would once take a few hundred shots when they paid for film, processing and scanning, now they fire many thousands of shots, shoot longer, take more chances, etc. In many forms of photography, specially birding, sports, action, candids, the more "stuff" you throw against the wall, the better chance you have to increase the "keepers". Also, in FAST action photography, the high end DSLR's have superseeded 35mm film.... so the over all image quality I see now in this arena, has also elevated quite substantially. As the digital makers next improve lower noise higher ISO's (Nikon seems to have mastered ISO 1600 already), and next pump up the DR, we will see another huge jump in IQ...

  6. #126

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    1,851

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Moat View Post
    I fail to be impressed by the quality of inkjet prints, though I have seen some amazing and compelling images printed that way.
    Inkjet printing has a very long tonal range in black and white, and rich, delicious colors ini color. It's a very capable medium. If you haven't seen truly impressive inkjet prints, you just haven't had the opportunity to see some from someone who can really print.

    Of course, there are a lot of differing ideas about what makes a great print. Some favor a great, dark black, others don't care about black at all. Some like it shiny, some don't. Etc., etc.

    As to shooting millions of pictures to get one good one.... (from a different post), I suppose there are lots of folks who like to do that and for them digital is fabulous. I think folks with large format cameras are the other type....

    I do sincerely agree that one should look at what they are trying to accomplish, preferably educate themselves with a little History, and work back to the right tools for the intended goal.

    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  7. #127

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    4,672

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    Over the years I have tested all of my scanners, and a few belonging to friends, with high resolution targets. I use the chrome on glass targtets that are capable of discrimination up to more than 225 lpm. The information is valuable and has taught me a lot about the capabilities (or lack of it) of some of the scanners tested.

    The ability to resolve fine detail is an essential quality of every high quality scanner. But it is not the only important quality, as the ability to pull out information from high density areas, along with contrast, are also very important. A top quality scanner should be able to do all of these things.

    Sandy King

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg Krusche View Post
    hi,

    there is an easy and inexpensive way for you to test our own scanner .. just buy a USAF 1951 test chart on film (will cost you about 50 euros) which goes up to group 7 .. did that with the lanovia .. max resolution for me is in the range of 50 to 55 lps/mm .. this means that you can with your nose close up still will have your 5 line pairs per mm .. the picture/print will be critically sharp at all viewing distances .. and 4x5 will give you a 40x50 print.... greater viewing distances do not even require those about 2500 ppi .. such a simple test will tell you what your specific equipment can deliver ... and actual 2500 ppi is quite a lot .. btw Fuji with reference to the lanovia and max optical resolution speaks of 2500 ppi in case of halftone and 5300 if line art.

    just my 2 ..


    joerg

  8. #128

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    . . . . .

    "This is all that gear matters, in that is does not get in your way, nor hinder your creative vision."


    I would disagree with generalizations like this. If someones goal is to make a tack sharp 70" print of a non static scene.... I would suggest a photog with a 8x10" view camera, or a high end MF back would have a much better chance of meeting their objectives, vs. if they had a mini digicam.
    You disagree, but you exactly made my point. If your goal is to take pictures of dangerous animals at a distance, or a dangerous enemy, then a short lens would hinder your creative vision. I felt that point so obvious to not be worth stating, though perhaps I should have been more precise . . . after all this is the internet, and not an in-person discussion.



    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    The end product should drive the gear choice. I realize I exaggerated a situation to make a point... but... Since most hobbiest do not have the ability to own "all" the gear, it makes sense to analyze what type of final images you want to achieve, and work backwards from there.
    Isn't this obvious? Let me try another way to state this: if two photographers stand together in front of a scene, quite likely they will each have a different choice of gear, and different approach, despite that their results might appear to be very similar views of the same scene. Obviously the results could also differ greatly. If you want to take that to another extreme, give one photographer a D-SLR and a 600mm lens, and give the other photographer the same D-SLR and a 50mm lens . . . in such a comparison the results are likely to be different, yet despite the great cost of the 600mm there is no guarantee the resulting images will be any more compelling . . . regardless of subject and scene. Anyway, if I typed every situation, I could write a book . . . if all you want to do is take long distance pictures of girls at the beach, without them knowing, then a wide angle lens is going to hinder your creative vision . . . See how this could get?

    I don't care what equipment you purchase, or how expensive it is, or is not; but you will not get any guarantee of improving your results. Buying gear is not the path to becoming a better photographer. Overcoming technical problems does not make you a better photographer. Anyone who thinks "if only I had such and such a lens/camera/computer/scanner/printer I would become a better photographer" is delusional and has drank too much of the Koolaid . . . and this illustrates a problem of the internet discussions in that you nearly need to hit someone over the head with a virtual piece of lumber in order to make a point . . . just kidding.



    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    But of course, more gear or better gear won't radically change the skill of the artist to capture a scene, this is a different animal.
    Exactly! I suppose I didn't state this well enough, but hopefully what you stated right there is more likely to be understood than my generalization.


    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    But with the advent of digital, and the sense of, "every capture is free", I have seen many elevate the quality of their output.... why?
    Practice and editing. I have seen people do the same thing with film cameras. Of course these people ignore that shutters do wear out, and cameras do fail. Quite often many of them miss certain shots from not taking a breath and slowing down a little. High volume is not a path to greatness; only a different approach.



    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    Because where they would once take a few hundred shots when they paid for film, processing and scanning, now they fire many thousands of shots, shoot longer, take more chances, etc.
    I know some photographers who have a vastly greater frame count than many other photographers, yet their images still suck. Why is that?



    Quote Originally Posted by bglick View Post
    In many forms of photography, specially birding, sports, action, candids, the more "stuff" you throw against the wall, the better chance you have to increase the "keepers". Also, in FAST action photography, the high end DSLR's have superseeded 35mm film.... so the over all image quality I see now in this arena, has also elevated quite substantially. As the digital makers next improve lower noise higher ISO's (Nikon seems to have mastered ISO 1600 already), and next pump up the DR, we will see another huge jump in IQ...
    Ever look at the set-up at a major sporting event? Many of the cameras are remote controlled and simply triggered or fire off when action comes into focus . . . no photographer needed, other than clamping it down. The fans don't care, as long as they recognize the players. That boils down photography into a commodity. The functional difference in the work I do in photography is that I am controlling the image, and not waiting for it to happen.

    I get this feeling that you are wowed by the technology. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one does not put too much faith into it. I have shot with much of the latest from time to time, and I have also worked on some future gear for a major manufacturer. Obviously none of this stuff is crap, but it is also not the next best thing to holes in Swiss cheese. The fact remains that many great images were made in the past on far worse (technically) gear than is available now. If you cannot pick up and use a camera somewhat like one of the past masters, and create images as compelling as their images, then the latest and greatest will never elevate your images past their results.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat Photography

  9. #129

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    781

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    > I get this feeling that you are wowed by the technology.

    No, not really the case.... If anything, I might be wowed by the process of getting from point A to point B. The understanding of the fundamentals of imaging (optics, MTF, Nyquist, printing, etc) all play a role in the chain of meeting your final objectives. Of course, I have made a lot of 20 ft prints, which makes you plan real carefully.


    When I shoot images that will be 11x14" or smaller, the freedom I have today amazes me.... anything is possible, no math required, no wow'd of technology, just focus on the scene layout, capture, technique, etc. In this case, everything is a slam dunk. Similar to making a trip to the grocery store 2 miles away, I grab my keys and go, no thinking, no planning, no strategy, no thoughts about cost, cause the technology is overkill for the application. But when I travel cross country in my motorhome.... ah yeah, now its all about thinking, planning, costing, check lists, etc. etc. Photography is a vast field, we all do different things, have different goals, etc.


    I don't want to beat a dead horse regarding the "gear" issue.....




    as I think we sort of agree.... but the right gear is sometimes critical to meet the final objectives...whereas you made it sound as if, give a great photographer junk gear, he can can turn chicken chit into chicken salad... I don't always agree with this.

  10. #130

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    2,425

    Re: side by side comparison... large print digital back VS 4x5 color film

    I'll admit to only having read every word up through around post 70; after that I scanned (pardon the pun) carefully. Despite Sandy's likely disappointment that this strays a bit from the topic...

    My benchmark is an 8x10 black-and-white silver-gelatin contact print. Many observations lead me to accept Ctein's criterion of 30 lp/mm as necessary for "perfect sharpness" in a print. The frequently quoted 5 lp/mm falls far short of contact-print quality in my experience. Therefore, I'm sticking with a completely wet approach until:

    • A reasonably priced printer (that performs well in all other respects) becomes available with 1500 dpi output
    • An affordable digital instantaneous capture device, easily transportable and usable in a variety of outdoor environments, is offered with a 186 Mp sensor.


    As an amateur dilettante, I don't need to deal with the commercial factors many of you do. That's satisfying.

Similar Threads

  1. "Digital 4x5"?
    By Eric Leppanen in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18-Jul-2005, 23:59
  2. Grafmatic 6 sheets 4x5 film folder
    By NG Sai-kit in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 25-Dec-2001, 11:18
  3. Digital printing 6x9 vs 4x5
    By Glenn Kroeger in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 22-Feb-2000, 13:42
  4. 4x5 best optics w/ Scheider HIGH END BACK sharper than 8x10?
    By Bill Glickman in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 17-May-1999, 05:31
  5. 4x5 digital camera back
    By Peter Tucker in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26-May-1998, 16:30

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
  •