Digital Capture vs. Film Capture...the PRINTS...

[JBrunner]

It is important to realize that the 'PUG isn't anti digital, nor is it only about film. Many persons who come to the site take that away from the few users that are (who we all get tired of), or get confused (sometimes rather intentionally) because the intent of the site is to be exclusive to analog photography processes, film being among them. We also actively club DvsF threads as dead horses on a regular basis, allowing some that have marginal value that seem more or less civil live once in a while. It's more about having a narrow scope that serves a particular niche. A discussion of automobiles in the darkroom forum would be just as frowned on. Bagging on APUG as "anti-digital" is just one more long dead horse.

[frank hoerauf]

Yeah!! What he said!!

[Marko]

It is important to realize that the 'PUG isn't anti digital, nor is it only about film. Many persons who come to the site take that away from the few users that are (who we all get tired of), or get confused (sometimes rather intentionally) because the intent of the site is to be exclusive to analog photography processes, film being among them. We also actively club DvsF threads as dead horses on a regular basis, allowing some that have marginal value that seem more or less civil live once in a while. It's more about having a narrow scope that serves a particular niche. A discussion of automobiles in the darkroom forum would be just as frowned on. Bagging on APUG as "anti-digital" is just one more long dead horse.

Well, I could never understand why would people participating in discussions on a forum that has "analog/analogue" in its name and "film only" in its mission statement even want to discuss digital, and I am not surprised at the amount of nonsense and noise that usually emanate from such discussions.

But that is a matter of APUG's policies, so there's absolutely no problem with that. I simply find wading through such mud in order to get to the useful, film-related information too tedious to be worth the effort so I chose long ago not to go there.

What I do have a problem with is that same noise and shrillness starting to pollute this forum.

What a few of us are trying to say is: what happens at APUG should stay at APUG, that's all. Just like those of us who dislike such "discussions" have a good sense not to go there, so should those who crave them return the favor and go there when they feel like it. In other words, the more we try not to step on each others' toes (or tails if you will ), the more likely we will be to have a great community here. That's a very simple recipe for a civil discourse, why is it so hard to understand and why is insisting on it perceived as bashing?

[Anders_HK]

Hi, I am new to large format (last night I received my Fuji Quickload holder so now my Shen-Hao can take photos!). Else as a hobby I photograph using film 6x7 (Mamiya 7) and digital using a Leaf Aptus 65 back on Mamina 645 (also Sigma DP1, interesting small sensor). Before I shot 35mm slides and DSLR.

Not intending to raise any issue of film vs. digital. Like many I jumped onto the digital wagon convinced by online forums and media of that it was superior. I have learnt three things: For one, it is not superior. It is DIFFERENT. For the second it is EXPENSIVE. For the third it has taken up enormous amounts of my TIME (processing, learning), whereas film was simple in that after pressing the capture, you had the capture.

I still love the look of film . Though I also enjoy the quality I can get from the Leaf digital back. It is like different pallets to paint on as an artist. Attached is a shot captured using the Leaf last year during one of my travels, on a used slight beat up Mamiya 645 AFD camera and sharp Mamiya 28mm lens. As a passionate hobby I photograph landscapes and people living traditional lives on travels. I am curious what you guys think of the image qualities and its use compared to film. Please do not get me wrong, in no way do I seek to compete with it to large format. It is different. Simply put many photos on this website blow my mind away, because LARGE FORMAT and FILM, and... this is one of reasons that led me into large format myself, together with the different way of seeing and working which I am very keen on experiencing. The attached photo in JPG does not show you much because small, so for download:
JPG (full size) – https://rcpt.yousendit.com/650933400...87a75ae9ce361a
RAW – https://rcpt.yousendit.com/650933130...6f5dff6f240d02

Feel free to play the files but else do respect my copyright. JPGs are without processing and only as opened using the defaults in CS3, you can use either CS3 or CS4 yourself to read the RAW (just choose open in Photoshop CS3 or CS4). I find the files from the Leaf already have pleasing colors and rendering at defaults as a departure point for further adjustments and processing, DSLRs did not to me because their sensors are different. Obvious, the sensor of the Aptus 65 is 44mm x 33mm and a crop of 645, and far from 6x7 or 4x5 in size. It is not only the sensor size and pixels (28.6MP in this case) that matters, also image IQ capabilities and of course camera format and lenses. In the end, like oil painting and aquarels, photography is an art. My photography is striving at that in my learning yet of it. Anyways... curious to get any comments.

Regards
Anders

[D. Bryant]

Hi, I am new to large format (last night I received my Fuji Quickload holder so now my Shen-Hao can take photos!). Else as a hobby I photograph using film 6x7 (Mamiya 7) and digital using a Leaf Aptus 65 back on Mamina 645 (also Sigma DP1, interesting small sensor). Before I shot 35mm slides and DSLR.

Not intending to raise any issue of film vs. digital. Like many I jumped onto the digital wagon convinced by online forums and media of that it was superior. I have learnt three things: For one, it is not superior. It is DIFFERENT. For the second it is EXPENSIVE. For the third it has taken up enormous amounts of my TIME (processing, learning), whereas film was simple in that after pressing the capture, you had the capture.

I still love the look of film . Though I also enjoy the quality I can get from the Leaf digital back. It is like different pallets to paint on as an artist. Attached is a shot captured using the Leaf last year during one of my travels, on a used slight beat up Mamiya 645 AFD camera and sharp Mamiya 28mm lens. As a passionate hobby I photograph landscapes and people living traditional lives on travels. I am curious what you guys think of the image qualities and its use compared to film. Please do not get me wrong, in no way do I seek to compete with it to large format. It is different. Simply put many photos on this website blow my mind away, because LARGE FORMAT and FILM, and... this is one of reasons that led me into large format myself, together with the different way of seeing and working which I am very keen on experiencing. The attached photo in JPG does not show you much because small, so for download:
JPG (full size) – https://rcpt.yousendit.com/650933400...87a75ae9ce361a
RAW – https://rcpt.yousendit.com/650933130...6f5dff6f240d02

Feel free to play the files but else do respect my copyright. JPGs are without processing and only as opened using the defaults in CS3, you can use either CS3 or CS4 yourself to read the RAW (just choose open in Photoshop CS3 or CS4). I find the files from the Leaf already have pleasing colors and rendering at defaults as a departure point for further adjustments and processing, DSLRs did not to me because their sensors are different. Obvious, the sensor of the Aptus 65 is 44mm x 33mm and a crop of 645, and far from 6x7 or 4x5 in size. It is not only the sensor size and pixels (28.6MP in this case) that matters, also image IQ capabilities and of course camera format and lenses. In the end, like oil painting and aquarels, photography is an art. My photography is striving at that in my learning yet of it. Anyways... curious to get any comments.

Regards
Anders

Anders,

I'm downloading your file now, I must say I like the attached image. If using the Leaf back with the Mamiya works for you then stay with it.

Don Bryant

[JBrunner]

Well, I could never understand why would people participating in discussions on a forum that has "analog/analogue" in its name and "film only" in its mission statement even want to discuss digital, and I am not surprised at the amount of nonsense and noise that usually emanate from such discussions.

But that is a matter of APUG's policies, so there's absolutely no problem with that. I simply find wading through such mud in order to get to the useful, film-related information too tedious to be worth the effort so I chose long ago not to go there.

What I do have a problem with is that same noise and shrillness starting to pollute this forum.

What a few of us are trying to say is: what happens at APUG should stay at APUG, that's all. Just like those of us who dislike such "discussions" have a good sense not to go there, so should those who crave them return the favor and go there when they feel like it. In other words, the more we try not to step on each others' toes (or tails if you will ), the more likely we will be to have a great community here. That's a very simple recipe for a civil discourse, why is it so hard to understand and why is insisting on it perceived as bashing?

What you are saying doesn't make much sense. DvsF dreck on APUG is almost non existent, and as a matter of fact that is the whole point of the site, to focus on analog process. Almost every one of the 200 or so currently active threads are about specific analog photographic subjects unrelated to DvsF in any way. I can think of only one thread right now that has any content regarding that stuff. F vs D on APUG is dead and buried for the most part. Your characterization of APUG is sweeping and generally incorrect, and that is why I perceive it as bashing. Anyway, OT for this thread, and I apologize, but since it was brought up I felt a response was warranted.

On topic, I'll say this:

Persons who argue quality from either camp are usually gear head hacks. Like, when the quality of blah blah is as good as blah blah, I'll switch, or the quality of blah blah will never be as good as blah blah. News flash: If you can't get exceedingly good quality out of either medium, you suck, not the medium. The quality issue can be found in front of the mirror in your john. The issue isn't quality, it's qualities, pure and simple, and those are exceedingly subjective and highly personal, horses for courses, and intent. Thats why most of this stuff is such a circle jerk.

[Jim collum]

wonderful images!

I use the Aptus 75s on an Horseman SWDII, as well as a 4x5 view camera. Although different from film, you do approach the latitude of negative film (color & b/w) when using the Mf or LF digital solutions. (although with b/w film, you can extend this latitude further with compensating developers). What I've found is that the mid-tone tonality with the MF/LF digital can be much smoother than that of smaller format digital. Color rendition is pretty much all over the map.. as with film. The best you can do is to find the film or sensor/processing combination that best suits your palette. One person's 'perfect color' can be someone else's over or undersaturation. There's really nothing 'real' about any of the output... it's how you perceive it.

jim

Hi, I am new to large format (last night I received my Fuji Quickload holder so now my Shen-Hao can take photos!). Else as a hobby I photograph using film 6x7 (Mamiya 7) and digital using a Leaf Aptus 65 back on Mamina 645 (also Sigma DP1, interesting small sensor). Before I shot 35mm slides and DSLR.

Not intending to raise any issue of film vs. digital. Like many I jumped onto the digital wagon convinced by online forums and media of that it was superior. I have learnt three things: For one, it is not superior. It is DIFFERENT. For the second it is EXPENSIVE. For the third it has taken up enormous amounts of my TIME (processing, learning), whereas film was simple in that after pressing the capture, you had the capture.

I still love the look of film . Though I also enjoy the quality I can get from the Leaf digital back. It is like different pallets to paint on as an artist. Attached is a shot captured using the Leaf last year during one of my travels, on a used slight beat up Mamiya 645 AFD camera and sharp Mamiya 28mm lens. As a passionate hobby I photograph landscapes and people living traditional lives on travels. I am curious what you guys think of the image qualities and its use compared to film. Please do not get me wrong, in no way do I seek to compete with it to large format. It is different. Simply put many photos on this website blow my mind away, because LARGE FORMAT and FILM, and... this is one of reasons that led me into large format myself, together with the different way of seeing and working which I am very keen on experiencing. The attached photo in JPG does not show you much because small, so for download:
JPG (full size) – https://rcpt.yousendit.com/650933400...87a75ae9ce361a
RAW – https://rcpt.yousendit.com/650933130...6f5dff6f240d02

Feel free to play the files but else do respect my copyright. JPGs are without processing and only as opened using the defaults in CS3, you can use either CS3 or CS4 yourself to read the RAW (just choose open in Photoshop CS3 or CS4). I find the files from the Leaf already have pleasing colors and rendering at defaults as a departure point for further adjustments and processing, DSLRs did not to me because their sensors are different. Obvious, the sensor of the Aptus 65 is 44mm x 33mm and a crop of 645, and far from 6x7 or 4x5 in size. It is not only the sensor size and pixels (28.6MP in this case) that matters, also image IQ capabilities and of course camera format and lenses. In the end, like oil painting and aquarels, photography is an art. My photography is striving at that in my learning yet of it. Anyways... curious to get any comments.

Regards
Anders

[aphexafx]

Not to mention that "large format" and "digital" are not mutually exclusive. Mostly the term "large format" refers to the size of the film plate. A scanning back is a digital version of exactly this. Generally the term "large format" refers to the scale and weight of the camera you're using. Put a digital back on your 4x5. And, not to mention that for many here the goal is to digitize the film they shoot for whatever reason, so pretending that the digital capture segment is moot here would be really stupid.

I have a large format camera and it uses large format lenses. Currently I shoot film. I hope that were I to someday put a digital back on that large format camera, I would still be able to come here for help, etc.

People who come here and try to inject their perceptions of self-superiority because they only shoot film or can afford the best digital system make me want to puke. I agree that if you are convinced that your camera is making you a better artist, you are fooling yourself. It may make better sense for your particular brand of "art" but it does not make you a better artist. That's all in your head.

[Marko]

What you are saying doesn't make much sense. DvsF dreck on APUG is almost non existent, and as a matter of fact that is the whole point of the site, to focus on analog process. Almost every one of the 200 or so currently active threads are about specific analog photographic subjects unrelated to DvsF in any way. I can think of only one thread right now that has any content regarding that stuff. F vs D on APUG is dead and buried for the most part. Your characterization of APUG is sweeping and generally incorrect, and that is why I perceive it as bashing. Anyway, OT for this thread, and I apologize, but since it was brought up I felt a response was warranted.

I stopped visiting a while ago, after I opened a thread about the use of cookie jars (of all the things!) for storing chemicals and found that at least two out of four or five pages were full of it.

Don't get me wrong, I am not equating all APUG users with that, not even most, but I got so tired of wading through that nonsense every time I wanted to find some useful information about film and traditional processes that I simply decided it wasn't worth my time anyway.

I used to do film way back when Ilford FP4 did not have a plus attached to it and when HP was still HP4. Had a long hiatus and then came back, first with digital and lately with film too. I love shooting and processing B&W film and I would love to learn and re-learn a lot about it. APUG seems like a great repository of information about it and it is a real pity that relatively few extreme users managed to give it an image of an asylum for unadjustable luddites.

But if you say that that aspect has changed, I will take your word for it and go check it out again, with a very open mind. I would really love to find out that you are right.

As for the rest you said, I could not agree more.

Marko

[cobalt]

cobalt, the True Artist, everyone.

My friend, you sound like most of the overly-expressed art students that I go to school with. I really have no problem with you, nor am I involved inthis thread, but the way you've presented yourself in this thread is not going to impress anyone. I know, I know, a "True Artist" depends not on whom he impresses, but on how he impresses himself. Yeah. You should get over that. McCoy Tyner, I'm fairly certain, did not hit up the jazz forums and make scalding reflective references to "True pianists"... *barf*

Besides...Jim was expressing himself, it's good for his health.

First, I am not your friend. Second, impressing you would be... well... as much of a waste of time as what I am doing right now...

Talk to me (or better yet, someone who values your opinion) when you are old enough to drink legally.