80mp digital better than 8x10?

[tgtaylor]

Thomas, that photo is unavailable.

Well then why does it show up when I click on it and scroll down to Post #5?

[Ken Lee]

Well then why does it show up when I click on it and scroll down to Post #5?

Perhaps your browser has cached a copy. If I try to visit the file directly, by pasting the URL into my browser, the host reports that the image is unavailable.

[tgtaylor]

Perhaps it's your photo, and the service that hosts that image is letting you see it, but not us. This wouldn't be the first time that Flickr-hosted photos fail to show here for whatever reason.

I "removed" the flicker link by deleating the photo from flicker.

[Ken Lee]

That explains it

[cyrus]

Look folks the day will come when digital images are going to match film for sharpness and other technical qualities BUT that's not why people shoot film. Similarly, sharpness and other such qualities are not why people paint with oil paints, or why people take up wet plate photography. Film photography is simply a separate medium of expression than digital, and so there's no more point in comparing film with digital than there is to compare oil painting with sculpture.

[tgtaylor]

Hi Markus,

I believe that anyone that has made modest enlargements from film negative will tell you that they are far sharper than in your examples. Frankly I don't feel that their lack of sharpness is due to either a low or high resolution scan of the negative. Post #5 in the link below will bring you to a 80 DPI Epson 3200 scan of a contact print from an 8x10 negative that was posted to exhibit tray marks that appeared on the negative during development. Sure, it's not anywhere near as sharp as the print itself which clearly shown about 50 or so Cormorants on the higher rock but to me it indicates that there is something wrong with your methology beyond the resolution of the scan.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=80743

Thomas

Here's the photo that was posted in the link above:

[David R Munson]

Has anything been established in the last 11 pages? Can anyone summarize in two sentences or less?

[bob carnie]

I believe that LL is really in tight with the manufacturers of phase and other digital products, and by going after 8x10 film as the premo capture device lots of lemmings will be able to justify spending big bucks on new equipment, and as a long term ploy the digital producers and LL win financially in some way....
I must add that I have no problem with this, but it is a marketing method.

I may be naive but these mb x mb yearly increase with phase and DSLrs is a long term plan to suck money over the long haul out of peoples pockets.
Not to mention the yearly improvements in Adobe products or inkjet technologys.

Just my opinion of course.
I also have no problem with Micheal Reichman making these claims and I am kind of envious of his skills, he really is good at what he does.
At a certain point the debate will be over, next we will see faster , cheaper and this will be spread over the next 10 years.

Cannon and Nikon, Hp and others are winning big and good on them.

I haven't followed most of this thread closely because I think the kind of stuff everyone is getting so worked up about isn't worth worrying about. To me the only relevant equipment-related question is whether your equipment, whatever it is, does what you want it to do. And the possibility that some other equipment might do something better is unimportant if you don't care about whatever it is that the other equipment does better (in this case making massive prints).

But having said that, I'm curious why it's a marketing ploy (genuine question, not a disguised argument or challenge). By that I mean who among the participants in this test, whatever exactly it was, is marketing anything and what are they marketing?

[Darin Boville]

Film photography is simply a separate medium of expression than digital, and so there's no more point in comparing film with digital than there is to compare oil painting with sculpture.

Not at all true in practice, I'm afraid. Take landscape photography, the dominant genre here and on the LL board. The subject, the approach to the subject, the composition, the presentation--it is all essentially identical no matter whether you use film or digital. To non-technical viewers the results--not technical results but the exults flowing from aesthetic decisions--are indistinguishable.

For my part I find I can easily tell the difference between an oil painting and a sculpture.

--Darin

[Ken Lee]

Has anything been established in the last 11 pages? Can anyone summarize in two sentences or less?

Markus has graciously accepted our request that he re-shoot the test, with some assistance in selecting equipment, shooting, and scanning, provided by forum members.