Examples of Large Format shots that cannot be done with small

[Two23]

Oh, and the ability to use antique lenses.

Bingo.


Kent in SD

[jp]

From my experience there are several sensors on the market* that produce pretty huge dynamic range (14-15 stops) from one frame, easily rivaling the best I can get from 4x5 negative, color or B&W (I use the zone system and a Pentax Spotmeter for everything too). I even sometimes do two scans with my Howtek, one for the shadows and one for the highlights, then merge the exposures, to increase dynamic range of the final image. Even then, it's really hard for me to still bang the drum for film's superior dynamic range, to be honest. Not that far apart anymore.

*These sensors include the Sony/Nikon 36mp 24x36mm sensor, the Sony 42mp 24x36mm sensor, and the Sony/Pentax 50mp 33x44mm sensor. Looking forward to seeing what Nikon's new D5 sensor can do as well.

Yes, it has come a long ways. I have a D800 which only does infrared, and it's a big step up in dynamic range from previous cameras. I think film has an advantage here for the moment, but it's going to be short lived as digital makes big improvements in this area. For now, I can shoot film, not worry about the highlights when using a semi-compensating developer.

[Alan Gales]

A fellow on APUG was asking about 35mm lenses and what different "looks" they produced. We told him that there was not that much difference between Zeiss, Leitz, Nikkor, Canon, Minolta, Pentax etc. brand lenses.

I told him to look at large format where you have lenses from the 1800's to late sharp computer designed lenses. There is a lot of difference between a swirly Petzval, a Dagor, a Verito and a Sironar S plus all the other stuff out there. I posted Emil's lens comparison thread from here on there and it really impressed some of them. Of course Emil is very good at impressing people.

[Jim Galli]

Selective focus with razor thin depth of field? Soft focus with real definition? Even within large format it's hard to duplicate the possibilities of selective focus of a 300mm f4.5 lens. To get the same effect in 4X5 takes a 150mm f2.2.

Maybe it's something that only .001% of shooters consider valuable. But truly, you can't get close to the selective focus zone and bokeh that almost any lens can give in 8X10.

jason

Is that what you're asking, or am I confusing your question?

[Jim Galli]

Front rise. Get the tree all in your 35mm frame and keep the lines on the cabin straight.

This was a 270mm Dagor on 8X10 and I just about broke the camera straining every last mm of rise at fairly short bellows draw. Do that with your smart phone.

[Darin Boville]

Do that with your smart phone.

Trivial. First shot made with iPhone lens at "ground" level. Second shot corrected within a minute or two.



--Darin

[John Layton]

Jim Galli - that first image - does not matter what it is, but...WOW!!!

[Jim Galli]

Trivial. First shot made with iPhone lens at "ground" level. Second shot corrected within a minute or two.

--Darin

Fair enough. Ignorant of what Iphone can actually do. I don't have one.

Jim Galli - that first image - does not matter what it is, but...WOW!!!

Thanks John. Household plant.

[goamules]

Thanks Jim, I think the very short depth of field has to be a property "difficult to replicate with small formats."

And like everything that can be corrected, replicated, fold, spindled, and mutilated, with software....I prefer analog. Analog wetplate vs a plugin. Analog movements vs Photoshop. etc.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Trivial. First shot made with iPhone lens at "ground" level. Second shot corrected within a minute or two.

[...]

--Darin

Yeah, I learned that trick after a few trips to the pub, shooting from floor level under the table.
.