You missed the point. With extra long exposures where bright artificial light is present in a small section of the image, over exposure is inevitable. I'll have to link an example.
Originally Posted by venchka
You missed the point. With extra long exposures where bright artificial light is present in a small section of the image, over exposure is inevitable. I'll have to link an example.
Well, I just caught myself with my foot in my mouth, since Astia is now seemingly
impossible to get in 8x10. But I have also often used E100G for long exposures under dim lighting with no problem other than a time correction. Have also used Portra films, so even at f/64 with an 8x10, film itself isn't the issue for stationary subjects. But as already noted, the film does have to be correctly exposed in the first place!
A. You didn't mention bright artificial lights.
B. As Drew stated "the film does have to be correctly exposed in the first place!"
C. Do let us know where we will be able to see this ginormous prints.
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the North Carolina rainforest.
Wayne's Blog
FlickrMyBookFaceTwitSpacei
I say it'll doubtless prove easier to shoot 20x24" on three sheets of B&W film and make a tricolor Carbro print-- than it will be to get an answer that satisfies all of these conditions that seem destined (perhaps designed?) to prove the original workflow of MF digital back and stitching was superior to film for such night photography.
Yup, I said night photography. 5 seconds on a digital back @ --what?-- probably f/8 and likely no further stopped down than f/11, at ISO 400, likely as not. So what's that 5 or 6 stops further stopped down equate to in seconds at f/64 on 8x10? 160 seconds (5 stops) or 320 seconds (6 stops) on ISO 400, whoops make that ISO 50 (-3 stops is 1280 seconds --21 minutes:20 seconds or 42m:40s) -- before even factoring in reciprocity failure? Ha! If it wasn't completely dark to begin with, by now it will be...
Anyone else suspect we're being toyed with? This is the 4th post now from an enonymous rather than eponymous poster...
Re-reading the original post, I have to say I'm starting to agree. In what universe is stitching a few frames of MF digital MORE work than shooting, developing, scanning and dustbusting 8x10?
The Lightjets commonly installed are indeed limited to 50" rolls, but there is a machine called the Lightjet XL that can take 76".
It seems hard to fathom, if your subject matter can handle 4 second exposures, then its pretty damn still.... in which case, why mess with all this large gear, stitch, stitch, stitch....
As for printing, high quality ink jets can produce about 2x the resolution on paper than Light Jets...this assumes the original file has this much data to to print...and there is also some efficiency losses. IMO, LJ's are outdated already... hopefully the new crop of LED printers will print at 2x the rez the current crop offer. Jobo is first with 400 dpi, but small widths...
Anywhere between 18" and 90", with 45" being my favored size.
This topic has been discussed here at length more than once. Search the site, you'll find it I'm sure.
To summarize, the majority opinion was that inkjets are the sharpest print medium currently available. So it's not just QT who thinks this.
Bruce Watson
Good to know there are LightJets out there that print this big. (I happen to think C prints are great because the media is so comparatively cheap). As a practical matter, since we're not talking about analyzing satellite images of missile silos, 304.5 DPI resolution of a LJ oughta be sufficient resolution for a 60"x75" print. Especially since the OP specified an upper limit of 8x10. Whether it's possible to noticeably improve upon a 2283 dpi image file needed for a LJ from a 8x10 sheet of film (color negative, given this new high DR requirement), so that the higher potential res of an inkjet means anything, seems questionable.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks