Large format vs MFDB

[don mills]

Hello All:

Are there any technical or aesthetic advantages to using 8x10 film instead of MFDB for big prints? I shoot primarily forrest scenes using a great lens (Fine Art XXL 550) on my 8x10. The quality and feel in 40x50 inch (from 8x10) is nice, particularly with Fujichrome Provia.

My issue is that the cost of color film and high quality drum scans are killing me (~15 shots per week). But are there users of MFDB who are able to get the same creamy & 3D-esque quality (as 8x1o) in the end prints with MFDB?

I would very much appreciate any feedback from users who have made their own comparisons (in either 4x5 or 8x10) with MFDB. Pointers to articles discussing this as well.

Thank you all.

Don Mills, NYC

[Wallace_Billingham]

Most of the commercial shooters have switched to MFDB because it is much faster and clients want digital files and want them yesterday

[Archphoto]

8x10 and MFDB are appels and pears, forgive me.

When shooting the same subject from the same distance you will need a longer lens with the 8x10 compared to MFDB and with all its concequenses.
You will need to enlarge your 8x10 negs less than a file from a MFDB to get the same print-size.
Both have effect on the "feel" of the final photo.

Many, many years ago I did some testing between 6x7cm (Pentax) and 4x5" and at the same print-size, even an 8x10 I could see the diferences.
When you are used to 8x10 you are spoiled rotten..... arn't we lucky ?!

Whether 8x10 or MFDB is comercialy viable is something diferent, clients tend to look at their pockets/wallets first and then look at the technical quality of photo and the time involved and than decide for the cheapest and fastest options they have.

Peter

[Eric Leppanen]

Have you seen the write-up's on this subject (from a 4x5 shooter's perspective) by Joseph Holmes?

http://www.josephholmes.com/news-med...precision.html
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-fel...ographers.html

His overall conclusion (based on the current state of the technology) is:

The first thing view camera users usually want to know is: Will it match the sheer detail that I can get from my 4x5 sheet film? The answer is an inordinately complicated one. Sometimes, yes, and then some. Sometimes no.

The users of 39MP backs that I have spoken to say that, for landscape subjects, the backs hold their own against 4x5 film until print sizes exceed 24x30 or so. I haven't spoken to anyone with a P65+ but reviews on the web so far seem to suggest a tonality improvement versus 39MP backs but no noticeable resolution improvement. This of course may change as mechanical tolerances, quality control, etc. improves.

Of course there is always stitching but that limits your choice of subjects.

Since you shoot 8x10 color (as I do), you obviously require more than 4x5 quality, which would seem to make MFDB's problematic. Have you considered contacting a MFDB dealer and arranging for a "shoot out" between your 8x10 and a MFDB, using the subject matter of your choice? I understand dealers cooperate with such tests fairly regularly.

[MIke Sherck]

Undoubtedly a stupid question, but what does 'MFDB' stand for? A quick check of the abbreviation dictionary suggested: Maintenance Free Dehydrating Breather , Memory Form Definition Block, Movimento Famiglie Don Bosco, Matt Fowler Dot Business, or Mineral Formula Data Base.

Mike

[Archphoto]

As I translated: Medium Format Digital Back, considering Hasselblad (MF) and Digital...

Peter

[Robert Fisher]

MFDB of any resolution CAN NOT DUPLICATE the luxury of movements offered by LF.

IMHO that is s BIG negative.

[Sylvester Graham]

MFDB of any resolution CAN NOT DUPLICATE the luxury of movements offered by LF..

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=26309


And I think there aren't really any problems getting a "medium format" digital back onto a view camera, like a 6x9. Same thing, faster, better, easier.

[Drew Wiley]

Eric - size matters. If you are making big prints and want them truly detailed there's
just no substitute for 8x10 film in the field. But it all depends on your end result. Joe
Holmes is a friend of mine and a couple of months ago we had quite a discussion about
this. He's quite a technophile and knows his stuff, but so do I, so we always have
productive conversations. He was talking about getting an Arca MF system with some
kind of precision panning base and stitiching in order to get 8x10 quality. But this was
all hypothetical techo-talk. I doubt he'll actually do it. If you're an architectural or
product photographer it might make sense. But in the field? I added up the weight of
the necessary components to do this correctly, and it was actually quite a bit more
than my typical view camera load in the high Sierra (which is a type of photography
we have in common), the cost of gearing up would be obscene, and you really need
somewhat stationary subjects to get a stitiched image. Not to mention all the
persepective problems, battery-dependence,etc. But there are people who are going
to do this. The fact is, a digital print can only accept so much detail, and it's difficult
to justify 8x10 for a 30x40 inkjet when a 4x5 (or perhaps someday DMF) will suffice.
A 30x40 Cibachrome, however, will certainly separate the men from the boys. I
personally like highly detailed true optical prints. The big ground glass also allows more precise focus and often cultivates a more thoughtful way of looking at things. But I'm not going to get into culture wars about digital vs film. To each his own.

[Chris Strobel]

Eric - size matters. If you are making big prints and want them truly detailed there's just no substitute for 8x10 film in the field.

Or an old aps-c dslr, telephoto, and cheap panonhead

http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.co...intZoomify.htm