80mp digital better than 8x10?

[Jeremy Moore]

Well, I just rezzed one of my 8"x10" scans down from it's 23,000 x 18,400 px size to match the 10,328 max px width of the IQ180 and my 8x10 shot look quite a bit different than theirs do -- also without any sharpening like their shot.

My images are flatbed scanned on an Epson 10,000XL @ 2400ppi then cropped down to my pre-visualization as an 8"x10" @ 2300ppi.

"Whether we can get the same tonal quality especially in black and white images, as widely known from John Sexton and others, is a question of fine tuning and finally choosing the perfect printing technique, which is not very easy to find even nowadays."

Well, there's no "fine tuning" of my process because my process is the intuitive in nature--"fine tuning" my equipment isn't worth it, I prefer to make better images in the first place with the equipment I have than spend time making crappy pictures with high resolution in the hopes I remember every "fine tuning" step when it counts. I don't have to "find" the perfect printing technique either, because I'm the printer and I do a pretty damn good job at it. Then again, I'm not making any money selling my methods for making art, whether it be via DVDs or workshops or ad-revenue so I don't have to sell anyone that THEIR work will be better if they make it how I make mine.

I would rather spend all day making 5 photographs I want to develop, scan, and print than all day making 500 photographs I have to edit and fine-tune.

Edit: I guess my reason for making this post is because everyone is getting hung up on the particulars of the test when what really matters is whether you want to be making photographs using the process required to shoot like Reichmann. How would an IQ180 fit into your gear bag? I don't think we shoot large format because of resolution -- I don't make any photographs because of resolution. I make photographs because when I stop and set up my camera the most important thing in the world to me is sharing what I see with the world. Clarity is overrated. Art obfuscation is bullshit. Just get out with a camera, make photographs that resonate with you, and print it so you're proud to share it.

[Brian C. Miller]

How would an IQ180 fit into your gear bag? I don't think we shoot large format because of resolution -- I don't make any photographs because of resolution. I make photographs because when I stop and set up my camera the most important thing in the world to me is sharing what I see with the world. Clarity is overrated. Art obfuscation is bullshit. Just get out with a camera, make photographs that resonate with you, and print it so you're proud to share it.

The real question for that is, how does the camera fit what you want to photograph? I got into LF because straight MF lenses didn't fit the scenery. Box cameras have limitations. I oh-so-sorely wanted certain aspects of the scene to be in focus, and the shutter speed I wanted to use. I can do that with LF, but not with MF. More megapixels isn't the answer for me, it's in how the tool can be used. I personally would still need movements on a MF camera. The extra resolution of LF is just icing on the cake, and how thick and sweet it is!

[Jeremy Moore]

The real question for that is, how does the camera fit what you want to photograph?

Yep. That's why I don't care if other people think I have a lot of different cameras. I use them all differently to match what I am shooting as how I shoot and approach a subject affects the final photograph. And it affects my perception of the experience of creating the photograph.

I have a day job, photography is a lifestyle choice.

[John NYC]

Well, I just rezzed one of my 8"x10" scans down from it's 23,000 x 18,400 px size to match the 10,328 max px width of the IQ180 and my 8x10 shot look quite a bit different than theirs do -- also without any sharpening like their shot.

I don't think anyone here thinks you can't make a good 24x30 with an 8x10 scan. The question is can the IQ180 make as good of an 80-inch print as an 8x10. Fill in your own definition of "good".

[Daniel Stone]

The question is can the IQ180 make as good of an 80-inch print as an 8x10....

Also, HOW OFTEN are any of us making an 80" print(through any process, analog or digital)? I mean, that's over 6.5 feet! Most people don't even have enough wall space to hang(or the budget to frame) an 80" print. We aren't all Gursky's with unlimited budgets here .

-Dan

[John NYC]

Also, HOW OFTEN are any of us making an 80" print(through any process, analog or digital)? I mean, that's over 6.5 feet! Most people don't even have enough wall space to hang(or the budget to frame) an 80" print. We aren't all Gursky's with unlimited budgets here .

-Dan

Agree totally.

But if we are talking about 24x30 prints, then why even compare? Both might have slightly different looks to them, but both systems can do that with ease.