Large Format vs Medium Format Digital

[timparkin]

When I go to the Whitney Biennial this coming March, I'll be certain to bring a microscope to look at the photographic prints. It's being curated by Sondra Gilman (who is also curator of photography at the Whitney) and Elisabeth Sussman and Jay Sanders. I wonder if they used Zeiss or Leitz microscopes in their decisions as to what to select. I've been told that Zeiss is superior to Leitz, and so that certainly would have a bearing on their decision making.

I'm sure you meant this as sarcasm but ...

http://whitney.org/Research/TechnicalStudies



You can't tell what the microscope is however.. ;-)

Tim

[John NYC]

Got a PM from Meerkat, and it was a sarcastic post. Sorry I did not pick up on that, but am a little jumpy from the previous threads on this topic where it goes all pear shaped about resolution discussions.

[Steve Smith]

You can't tell what the microscope is however.. ;-)

Probably Olympus.


Steve.

[paulr]

I wonder if they used Zeiss or Leitz microscopes in their decisions as to what to select. I've been told that Zeiss is superior to Leitz, and so that certainly would have a bearing on their decision making.

The younger generation of curators just compares the image histograms. It's way more efficient.

(I've actually considered submitting a portfolio of historgrams; I just suspect too few people are geeky enough to get the joke)

[Jon Warwick]

Tim - many thanks for producing such a thorough and well-written test.

Re: your comments on the Mamiya 7 resolution vs. 4x5. It seems you're stating that the Mamiya could potentially match 4x5, via (i) A larger scan, perhaps 12,000dpi. But would an extra-high dpi scan also produce more grain content that could further crush fine detail?; and are there many labs in the UK producing such large dpi scans, making such a scan fairly elusive anyhow?; (ii) Make traditional "wet" prints using top-end technique and equipment. That's perhaps fine for smaller prints up to 20"x24". But I suspect it's fairly unfeasible and uncommon to find pro-labs that produce exhibition-quality wet prints any larger than 20"x24" in a "traditional darkroom" these days?

Secondly, in your "Printed Results" section, you discuss 8x10 versus the IQ180 and at what sizes you subjectively think one "looks" better than the other ...... can you give us a similar view on the "Printed Results" of DSLRs (Canon 5D Mark 2 and Nikon D3X) vs. scanned Portra from a Mamiya 7? I ask that, especially because of your comments that "Just as an aside, the Mamiya 7 did very well in the resolution tests and yet the files looked a lot worse than the absolute resolution would indicate. This is due to the grain of the film starting to obscure tonality and fine detailed textures. Low contrast elements got lost within the grain in most cases. The Mamiya 7 ended up resolving considerably more than the DSLRs but looking only slightly better than them".

I've looked at "Comparing Canon 5Dmk2 with Mamiya 7, Portra 160", and I'd agree that the Mamiya 7 image does look grainier but (similar to your comments) is equally relatively sharper and in my view more "3D" than the DSLRs. Can you elaborate on your above comments a bit more, up to what size prints you think a Mamiya 7 only looks slighty better than the DSLRs? Given the "resolution brick wall" of digital, does the slight visual upside of the Mamiya 7 over the DSLRs become more and more apparent with larger print sizes; and - at the same time - is the difference between prints from DSLRs and a Mamiya 7 pretty minimal up to certain print sizes, etc etc?

As an aside, I thought your side-by-side comparison that uses a "slider" within the section "Choose which cameras / films to compare" was quite brilliant.

Thanks -- and once again, congratulations on such a thorough review.

[engl]

Thank you, and those assisting, for another interesting comparison. Well executed as always!

I'm not very surprised about the digital vs film part (although seeing how well resolution holds up on 8x10-covering lenses was interesting), but it was interesting to see Mamiya 7 vs. 4x5. I've found my Mamiya 7 negs to be incredibly detailed, but the larger enlargement vs. 4x5 tends to make grain and tonality worse. It is also places high demands on the scanner.

[timparkin]

Tim - many thanks for producing such a thorough and well-written test.

Thanks

Re: your comments on the Mamiya 7 resolution vs. 4x5. It seems you're stating that the Mamiya could potentially match 4x5, via (i) A larger scan, perhaps 12,000dpi. But would an extra-high dpi scan also produce more grain content that could further crush fine detail?; and are there many labs in the UK producing such large dpi scans, making such a scan fairly elusive anyhow?;

There are about four or five places to get scans at that resolution done but they aren't as cheap as getting me to do them (I charge £10+VAT for a 6x7 slide at 4000dpi - I think the best drum scanner currently charges more like £100+VAT for the highest res scan)

(ii) Make traditional "wet" prints using top-end technique and equipment. That's perhaps fine for smaller prints up to 20"x24". But I suspect it's fairly unfeasible and uncommon to find pro-labs that produce exhibition-quality wet prints any larger than 20"x24" in a "traditional darkroom" these days?

Very true - I think the UK has no-one left that operates a full commercial business doing this, even metro now scans for print. You'd have to go to one of the classic German printing houses to get a proper print.

Secondly, in your "Printed Results" section, you discuss 8x10 versus the IQ180 and at what sizes you subjectively think one "looks" better than the other ...... can you give us a similar view on the "Printed Results" of DSLRs (Canon 5D Mark 2 and Nikon D3X) vs. scanned Portra from a Mamiya 7? I ask that, especially because of your comments that "Just as an aside, the Mamiya 7 did very well in the resolution tests and yet the files looked a lot worse than the absolute resolution would indicate. This is due to the grain of the film starting to obscure tonality and fine detailed textures. Low contrast elements got lost within the grain in most cases. The Mamiya 7 ended up resolving considerably more than the DSLRs but looking only slightly better than them".

I haven't tried printing these as I only have the studio results and I was running print tests on the landscape results. I will be doing this though..

Looking at the results at the bottom of the 800px page though and it looks like the D3X and Mamiya 7 are on a par with each other. However, I'm going to be rescanning to minimise grain and see how the images compare then (I'm still mastering my neg scanning and most of the scans were made to maximise fine detail, not to reduce grain).

I've looked at "Comparing Canon 5Dmk2 with Mamiya 7, Portra 160", and I'd agree that the Mamiya 7 image does look grainier but (similar to your comments) is equally relatively sharper and in my view more "3D" than the DSLRs. Can you elaborate on your above comments a bit more, up to what size prints you think a Mamiya 7 only looks slighty better than the DSLRs? Given the "resolution brick wall" of digital, does the slight visual upside of the Mamiya 7 over the DSLRs become more and more apparent with larger print sizes; and - at the same time - is the difference between prints from DSLRs and a Mamiya 7 pretty minimal up to certain print sizes, etc etc?

This is a test I'm still doing (just rescanning the images now) so I'll get back to you. Drop me a line at info at timparkin dot co dot uk in about a weeks time and I'll send the results through.

As an aside, I thought your side-by-side comparison that uses a "slider" within the section "Choose which cameras / films to compare" was quite brilliant.

Thanks -- and once again, congratulations on such a thorough review.

No problem - I appreciate the interest and support.

[timparkin]

Tim - many thanks for producing such a thorough and well-written test.

Thanks

Re: your comments on the Mamiya 7 resolution vs. 4x5. It seems you're stating that the Mamiya could potentially match 4x5, via (i) A larger scan, perhaps 12,000dpi. But would an extra-high dpi scan also produce more grain content that could further crush fine detail?; and are there many labs in the UK producing such large dpi scans, making such a scan fairly elusive anyhow?;

There are about four or five places to get scans at that resolution done but they aren't as cheap as getting me to do them (I charge £10+VAT for a 6x7 slide at 4000dpi - I think the best drum scanner currently charges more like £100+VAT for the highest res scan)

(ii) Make traditional "wet" prints using top-end technique and equipment. That's perhaps fine for smaller prints up to 20"x24". But I suspect it's fairly unfeasible and uncommon to find pro-labs that produce exhibition-quality wet prints any larger than 20"x24" in a "traditional darkroom" these days?

Very true - I think the UK has no-one left that operates a full commercial business doing this, even metro now scans for print. You'd have to go to one of the classic German printing houses to get a proper print.

Secondly, in your "Printed Results" section, you discuss 8x10 versus the IQ180 and at what sizes you subjectively think one "looks" better than the other ...... can you give us a similar view on the "Printed Results" of DSLRs (Canon 5D Mark 2 and Nikon D3X) vs. scanned Portra from a Mamiya 7? I ask that, especially because of your comments that "Just as an aside, the Mamiya 7 did very well in the resolution tests and yet the files looked a lot worse than the absolute resolution would indicate. This is due to the grain of the film starting to obscure tonality and fine detailed textures. Low contrast elements got lost within the grain in most cases. The Mamiya 7 ended up resolving considerably more than the DSLRs but looking only slightly better than them".

I haven't tried printing these as I only have the studio results and I was running print tests on the landscape results. I will be doing this though..

Looking at the results at the bottom of the 800px page though and it looks like the D3X and Mamiya 7 are on a par with each other. However, I'm going to be rescanning to minimise grain and see how the images compare then (I'm still mastering my neg scanning and most of the scans were made to maximise fine detail, not to reduce grain).

I've looked at "Comparing Canon 5Dmk2 with Mamiya 7, Portra 160", and I'd agree that the Mamiya 7 image does look grainier but (similar to your comments) is equally relatively sharper and in my view more "3D" than the DSLRs. Can you elaborate on your above comments a bit more, up to what size prints you think a Mamiya 7 only looks slighty better than the DSLRs? Given the "resolution brick wall" of digital, does the slight visual upside of the Mamiya 7 over the DSLRs become more and more apparent with larger print sizes; and - at the same time - is the difference between prints from DSLRs and a Mamiya 7 pretty minimal up to certain print sizes, etc etc?

This is a test I'm still doing (just rescanning the images now) so I'll get back to you. Drop me a line at info at timparkin dot co dot uk in about a weeks time and I'll send the results through.

As an aside, I thought your side-by-side comparison that uses a "slider" within the section "Choose which cameras / films to compare" was quite brilliant.

Thanks -- and once again, congratulations on such a thorough review.

No problem - I appreciate the interest and support.

[Daniel Moore]

You've done us a tremendous service, Tim, thank you.

I was very favorably impressed with the amount of color, contrast and tonality in the Mamiya 7 Portra 160 over the DSLR's. Most notably the improved realism of the field cameras metal parts along it's bed. Very attactive quality in and of itself, however it was arrived at (does the film simply have greater ability to see in lower light levels, is the Mamiya lens that much better, do other factors take most of the credit)?

[Steve Smith]

An excellent article with some well thought out comments too. None of the usual digital vs. film nonsense.


Steve.