Chucking it and going to DSLR?

[paulr]

The thing is, when I print 16x20 from 4x5, the results are noticeably less sharp than the same image printed at 11x14. They're still reasonable sharp, but not as sharp. This is from negs that are among my sharpest ... TMX, high definition developers, well focussed, good glass, aligned enlarger, etc. etc ...

This tells me that at a 4X enlargement from film, degradation is visible. Which suggests there could be visible advantages to even bigger formats than 4x5 if printing at this size. This is a quite the opposite of suggesting that 4x5 is overkill for the task.

[Jim Galli]

Um - wow. Didn't think I'd spawn six pages of comments, but thanks to everyone for the lively dialogue.

Some clarifying points -

1) I shoot color only.
2) I never really said I was going to sell my 4x5, I think I'll keep that.

I actually still shoot a 35 mm film camera, mainly for family stuff. Perhaps that is the camera I should replace, not the 4x5.

The other thing is, I loathe editing on the computer, so digital might actually seem more of a chore.

I think I just really need a new lens for my 4x5! That always cheers me up...

21? pages now. If all I did was sharp color pics I'd have chucked my stuff when the 10.2 MP cameras hit the market. Maybe sooner. Color and computers were made for each other. Put the Duesenberg in the garage for a while. Ford? Chevy? It really doesn't matter.

[Findingmyway4ever]

Bringing up an older thread. Why do people say so many times in this thread that if it was for color work, go DSLR? I do a ton of color work and use film because it looks better, to my eyes, than anything I have done digitally. I can get a far stronger/intense tonality/and gradations of color with film than I can with digital. Maybe people haven't used much color film in years because when you look at older images, digital or film, they look muted in color, as if they were done in the 40's. But the newer the images are, the more spectacular they look regardless of digital/film (in spite my liking still with film color prints over digital color prints).

Oh, and to answer the OP's question, and as many answered, different formats are absolutely necessary depending on final goals. One needs a rangefinder or something tiny but fast digitally to get those quick snaps when people are not looking. One needs a faster camera for sports, action, etc.=DSLR or my preference film wise-rangefinder. With static subject matter, one can essentially use any camera. Heck, the image may have hardly any detail at all whereby it may not matter what camera one uses from 35mm-LF. For things I like to do, portraits, landscape, city stuff, industrial, there's a load of information, and LF is what is used.

Do I accept digital images in spite I don't care for them? Sure...you put them in a photo album, 4X6 prints, and you don't look at them and criticize them since it was a memory. But I wouldn't care to have larger work around that was done with a digital camera unless I could somehow make it have the same look as I can with film.

[Steve Barber]

Cameras are tools; you use different tools for different jobs. Yes, you can make a tool do something it was not intended for, but the result may not be as good as you would like and it will almost always make the job more difficult.

As to what DSLR I would buy if I needed another, it would be the same one I have—a Canon EOS-1Ds in its original iteration. And, that would be the camera I would have if I were to be only allowed one camera.

[Tom Monego]

Went to a DSLR 4 years ago, traveling is a lot easier, you can carry your kit and no worries about X-Rays. I'm using a 10 mp camera and the photos are about where I was with a 2 1/4 Rollei. That said I like LF black and white tons better than b&w from digital.
If I was buying a camera now I would look at the 24 mp Sonys, unless I was thinking of shooting in dark areas, then it is Canon or Nikon, their high mp cameras are really expensive.
Saw a show last winter the photographer Neil Rantoul went from 8x10 to a 12mp Nikon and then a 24mp Nikon. The 8x10s were printed 30x40 approximately, the 12mp prints were 16x24 and the 24mp 24x36. These were photos of the eastern Washington, the Palouze. All the photos were very detailed but the 8x10s and the 24mp held the detail very well, they weren't contact prints. His reason for changing, travel.

Tom

[Robert Hughes]

Put the Duesenberg in the garage for a while.

I remember, as a kid, playing ball in the street, and clearing out of the way to see a clasic red Duesenberg SJ convertible drive through. WOW! What a car! It was as big as a delivery truck, and expensive as the Hope Diamond. Ooh, man, every boy on the block jumped to the curb and drooled as that thing drove by.


Of course, it is expensive and difficult to maintain, and gets terrible gas mileage. But it is a classic.

[RK_LFteacher]

Well, one furthur point: many people using LF do not use the correct F stop and create more diffraction and therefore a 16x20 could be less sharp than an 11x14 from the same negative. As the generally accepted maximum resolution of the human eye at 10" viewing distance is 8 line-pairs/mm(LP) you can determine the maximum enlargement possible for really sharp prints. If you wanted, for example, a 16x20, with a full frame 35mm or DSLR this is a 16x enlargement. You take 16x8LP=128LP for a 'tack sharp' enlargement. Now at all apertures there is a maximum theoretical resolution limit. At F22 it is 32LP. At F16 the upper 40's, at F11 perhaps the low 60's.
At F8 we are int maybe 80LP, and that is why 5.6 is generally the best balance of DOF and resolution for fullframe/35mm. But for 16x20, F4 is even better if the lens is a 2.8. The limits listed are 'Theorecticals', so a safety factor is encouraged.
A 16x20 shot with 4x5 is a 4x enlargement so only 32LP is required and one can get that with a good lens at just over F16. The movements are also easier to use than on a TS lens on Dslr, especially with a precise camera such as Arca Swiss.
Rod

[Robert Hughes]

Well, one furthur point: many people using LF do not use the correct F stop and create more diffraction.

... like all those F/64 guys. What were they thinking?

[rdenney]

Well, one furthur point: many people using LF do not use the correct F stop and create more diffraction and therefore a 16x20 could be less sharp than an 11x14 from the same negative.

Which is more important, providing the correct amount of depth of field, or minimizing diffraction?

Rick "who knows the answer" Denney

[dh003i]

I just use the effective f-stop = sqrt(375D) rule of thumb, where D is the focus-spread of furthest and nearest points in focus. This works fine so-long as you are in diffraction-limited territory or nearly-so. (and I've done a calculations that account for the actual sharpness of some of my LF lenses at f-stops where they won't be diffraction-limited, like f/11 or f/16...despite that, it doesn't really make any difference for what f-stop you should use for optimum sharpness).

For full-frame/35mm lenses, that rule might not work as well, because they're not as close to being diffraction limited. But also for lenses with DSLRs, it is unnecessary as you can just take a couple of shots and see what works best.