80mp digital better than 8x10?

[Edwin Beckenbach]

Completely agree. Could you add a bit of detail about your holders and the maximum apertures you typically use with them? I have crappy holders and usually stick to f16 and f32 for 4x5 and 8x10, respectively, which is sufficient for film plane slop. I can open up another stop if I'm careful and lucky but due to the scanner limitations and corner aberrations I don't benefit from going wider if my objective is a uniformly high resolution image.

This all gets a little bizarre when you consider that it is virtually impossible to tell the
difference between a good 8x10 lens and a super-good one unless you're making truly massive enlargements. There are certainly more important practical considerations in
the choice of lenses, such as image circle and weight. Now if you tend to use the same lens on 4x5, MTF etc becomes a little more relevant. But if your film plane isn't truly flat, you throw away all that special engineering anyway. And the FACT is,
that ordinary 8x10 holders do not hold film especially flat. Nor do any of the Quickload
or Readyload variety of 4x5 holders. So unless you use precision holders like I do, some of this discussion is moot. You're only as good as your weakest link.

[Peter York]

I am quite interested in this camera, or at least my company would love to see a 80mb file. We have onsite a phase which delivers around 40mb and we know how that compares to film.

Bob, please share your experiences.

I was really looking forward to the Carnie/Eiger/Reichman test, and I hope that you eventually perform it, write it up, and post the results, with or without Reichman.

[Ari]

"No! I mean, yes! I mean, no! I mean, I don't really care!"

You are so right!

[Lenny Eiger]

Bob, please share your experiences.

I was really looking forward to the Carnie/Eiger/Reichman test, and I hope that you eventually perform it, write it up, and post the results, with or without Reichman.

I did ask him... Reichman said he had it all covered, and that he didn't need me. It's unfortunate. I think its ridiculous to compare the best equipment on one side and some lousy scan on the other. It's ridiculous...

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

Interesting thread on LL about the test including some comments by Jack Flesher who used to be a regular here. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/fo...seen#msg468728

[patrickjames]

What a load of crap, in fact that is one of the biggest loads of crap I have seen on the internet, but it is not surprising considering the source. This kind of junk is why I think Luminous Landscape is a complete waste of time.

I would love to know why the original test wasn't done. Maybe because the result wasn't going to be satisfactory to the foregone erroneous conclusion that an 80mp back is better than 8x10 film? The scans that they did are so bad they look like they were made that way on purpose. The whole article is pitiful.

I would love for Bob and Lenny to do the real test. I have no doubt the result wouldn't even be close to this junk.

[Kirk Gittings]

Funny, I see LL and the LFF forum as opposite ends sides of the coin. There is about as much missinformation here about digital as there is there about film. Personally I regularly check out LL because its the only forum that I know of where any top flight commercial architectural photographers regularly post.

[Drew Wiley]

Edwin - I use adhesive filmholders ala Sinar style. The adhesive film is thin enough
to be negligible at my typical working apertures of f/32 to f/45, and certainly less than the film is capable of bowing in a conventional holder. I rarely do this for black
and white work where IF a relatively stiff polyester film base in present, and I enlarge to no more than 20 by 24. I prefer polyester for color sheet film too, but in
the past it wasn't always available, and the acetate version was sloppier in the holder. The other factor is that I want the option to enlarge color considerably larger,
and still hold very fine detail even in a Ciba or Fuji Supergloss print. 4 by 5 is less
of a problem because it just doesn't slump that much. In the lab for really critical
work like making enlarged dupes or internegs, I use an all-metal vacuum filmholder.
My personal 8 by 10 lenses tend to be very high quality Fuji-A's and C's etc, but as
I stated, almost all reasonably modern lenses in comparable focal lengths would be
adequate for generaly use, since the bigger problem is really the film plane itself,
and the general challenge of depth of field in the real world.

[Edwin Beckenbach]

Thank you Drew,
Do you apply the adhesive film yourself? If so what is the product? I did this for a project where I was shooting 8x10 directly down and it worked really well as far as keeping the film flat but the adhesive I was using, I don't remember what it was anymore, was too sticky and made inserting and extricating the film unduly difficult so I gave up on it for horizontal shooting. I would probably give it another try if I knew of a more appropriate material.

[Brian Ellis]

I've only seen one group of really large - 5 foot or so - prints from 8x10 film. Those were b&w prints made by Clyde Butcher in his darkroom and were exhibited in Tampa about 10-12 years ago. I've also only seen one group of really large - about 4 foot - prints from a digital back. Those were made by a local professional photographer with his new Pentax 645D camera. I was unimpressed with the technical quality of the Clyde Butcher prints. They were o.k. from a distance, not particularly good when viewed from about three or four feet away. OTOH, I was very impressed with the technical quality of the prints from the Pentax 645. I was able to see them from inches away and remained impressed.

I don't draw any general conclusions about 8x10 vs a digital back from this very limited experience. Different photographers, different processes, different lenses, different subject matter, different size prints, viewed at very different times, etc. etc. I also recognize that I had different expectations with the two groups of prints. I expected the ones from 8x10 film to blow me away and when they didn't I was disappointed. I wasn't expecting a whole lot from the 645D at those print sizes so they were a pleasant surprise. Nevertheless, taking all of these factors into consideration, I do think it's fair to say that at a minimum anyone who claims that any large print from any 8x10 negative will "smoke" a print from a 645 digital back couldn't be more wrong.