Compare final print resolution, different formats

[bglick]

Recently I made an extensive spreadsheet that compared the different formats,

Categorized by format diagonal

35mm - 13 MP
35mm - 17MP

MF Dig - 16MP
MF Dig - 22MP
MF Dig - 39MP

MF 6x7 Film

LF 4x5 Film

LF 8x10 Film

The graph below shows the max. final print resolution for 8" print (you can interpolate upwards) with many variables taken in consideration. I set up 5 scenes of varying DOF, ranging from the far left block of 35mm shooting at f2.8, the next scene 35mm required f4, the next scene 35mm required f5.6.... and finaly f8. Each format, according to film/sensor diag. had a proportional increase in f stop vs. the 35mm, which was the starting point since it's the smallest format. The f stop increase is indicated in the legend. For example, the second block from the right shows f stops at....

8/11/16/32/64

f8= 35mm full frame
f11 = MF Digital, 1.5x fstop of full frame 35mm
f16 = MF film 6x7, 2x fstop of full frame 35mm
f32 = LF film 4x5, 4x f stop of full frame 35mm
f64 = LF film 8x10, 8x f stop of full frame 35mm.

All these f stops produce the same DOF, as the lens fl increases for each format.

The final block to the right, which is an infinity scene, whereas each format was shot at its optimum f stop.

It is interesting to see just how superior 45 and 810 is when shot at infinity. (or a flat wall) It is equally interesting to see how MF 6x7 rivals 4x5 in extreme DOF scenes. (Which puts LF lenses and RFB in no-mans-land) Here is some notes regarding the graph....

1. All formats reduced to digital file, so scanner efficiency taken into consideration for film.

2. MF, 6x7 was based on high end MF cameras / lenses. I used Mamiya M7 tested results. This is quite different then using RFB using LF lenses / view cameras.

3. Digital values used based on testing and makers specification sheets.

4. This graph represents color images only, not B&W, in which case, B&W film would excel over digital to a greater extent.

5. LF assumes relatively newer sharper lenses using sharp color chrome films, no negs.

http://www.pbase.com/image/50899836

Anyway, I thought this may interest some.....

[Craig Wactor]

That is really interesting to see, but I am confused. You tested some formats, and others you used manufacturer's theoretical specs? The 16 and 22 mp backs seem to have identical responses, that is surprizing.

[paulr]

Photodo did a similar experiement ... http://www.pbase.com/image/50899836

they found the choice of film made a decisive difference. 35mm tmax actually appeared sharper and higher resolution than 4x5 tri-x. They show theoretical (MTF) and empirical (their own test target pictures) results. No real world subjects, though.

Possibly some discrepancy with optical quality. They use one of the highest quality modern zeiss lenses on the 35, and am old sironar on the 4x5.

[bglick]

Craig, as for data..... where actual test results were available they were used. Where they were not available, if it made more sense to interplolate from smaller formats or other similar tests, then I did such. In some cases, such as 39MP sensors, which have not hit the market yet, I had to interpolate using data from similar sensors and upsizing it accordingly.

As for the 16MP and 22MP having the same results....this is true... here is why, the analysis was only done on the short side of the recording media / print. In the case of the 16MP and 22MP, the two sensors were of different formats....

16 mp = 4080 x 4080
22 mp = 4080 x 5436

Since the pixel density was equal on the short side, the results were the same. But the 22MP would make a slightly larger horizontal print. I used the short side, to simplify the comparisons.... of course, the 35mm is 1.5 aspect ratio, vs. all the remaining formats 1.25 aspect ratio. (other than the 16MP square format) For all intensive purposes, you can just eliminate the 16MP results as it was the only square format, and the 22MP is of similar pixel density and is 1.33 format, close enough to 1.25 for this simple representation.

From these "short side" results, you can interpolate as you please with theoretical crops and get additional data that meets someones specific needs. For example, if someone wants to compare everything to the 35mm, 1.5 aspect ratio, then you need to reduce the height
(short side) of the 1.25 aspect ratio formats by,

4x5 = 5/4 = 1.25

reduce short side to 5/1.5 = 3.33, or a .666" reuduction, or in %'s

.666/4 = 16%

So if you reduce all the 1.25 aspect ratios results by 16%, you will have everything on even par with 35mm's aspect ratio of 1.5. Of course, others may want to crop 35mm to meet the 1.25 aspect ratio. There is endless possibilities to these types of format comparison, hence why I just picked the short side to get a feel for the relationships between formats.... play with the results as you please to fit the aspect ratio you desrie.

Hope this does not side track the intent of the graph....it's purpose is to show just how much difference there is in final print resolution based on the amount of DOF in a scene. The results surprised me a bit, on both ends! At infinity, LF simply rules...but extreme DOF scenes (of course front tilt is not being considered, as its used in a small % of scenes), I was shocked to see just how competitive a good MF system is. When considering the size, weight issues, in many cases, its a tough format to beat. Of course the Mamiya 7 system which I based this from, is an exceptionaly sharp camera system, due to the best optics combined with near perfect film flatness. But has limitations in lens available, no movements, etc. But I also put LF in its best light, considering the most modern LF optics and drum scans, all based on personal testing.

In the end, DOF is the dagger to LF as it forces the use of higher f stops, which introduces diffraction to the 1/R camera systems total resolution, which includes both the point-of-exact-focus and all the way out to the defocus of the near/far. As you can see, in a large DOF scene (second block from the right), 8x10 is severely injured by diffraction, yet 4x5 is just on the edge of being severely effected, hence why 8x10 will only produce an overall 20% improvement in sharpness vs. 4x5. Surely not worth all the expense, size, weight, of 8x10 vs. 4x5. But at infinity, well, 810 earns its wings, and produces the expected 100% increase in resolution.

So for newcomers, who are trying to select camera gear to best meet their needs, I think this information is very helpful, something I wish I better understood in my early days. Bottom line, unless you shoot at infinity, (or shoot flat subjects), 4x5 is truly a remarkable format in this era. It seems to fall in diffractions "grey area", as it relates to modern optics and modern films of today. Of course, this was NOT the case 50+ years ago, when optics and films resolution were so inferior. This explains in yesteryears, why even larger formats (ULF) were so common, they produced better results. This also explains why I have seen 16x20 contact prints, that simply don't impress me, as the higher f stop counteracts the larger film size. I have come accross a few ULF shooters, that don't fully grasp this. Of course some do, they just prefer using a huge camera. But I beleive the majority of LF photographers are mainly after image quality in the final print, and to those, this graph may be of help, as many of us have budgets, travel issues, physical limitations to weight of gear, etc.

As for 5x7, the results would have fallen relatively proportional between 4x5 and 810.

hope this helps...

[John_4185]

These metrics come back like the flu, over and over again and are about as usefull.

So for newcomers, who are trying to select camera gear to best meet their needs, I think this information is very helpful,

In reality, the newcomers will make so many mistakes that if the lens were magically perfect, it wouldn't help them.

[Dan Fromm]

I dunno, John, I've found calculations like Bill's somewhat useful for deciding what can't be done in the best of circumstances and, sometimes, ways around the limitations.

Why do you think I moved a little up in format from 35 mm? Short answer: some of what I wanted to accomplish can't be done with 35 mm, even with perfect lens and technique, but can be done with 2x3.

Cheers,

[John_4185]

Dan, the metrics are so very elementary and obvious that from day-one I never needed to elaborate upon them in order to justify a larger and sometimes smaller format. Topics mired in optical bench racing are usually begun with an abstract, generally poorly qualified case and go on forever with silly minutiae. Further, as it concerns this kind of case, I have not read an original, truly contributory addition to the knowledge base for many years; it's all just someone reinventing data, often with irrelevance and in error.

[Frank Petronio]

The practical questions might be along the lines of "If I use really fine grained film in a smaller format could I match or exceed the quality of faster film in a larger format?" Given that you might be able to shoot with a larger aperture and slow film in a smaller format versus needing to stop down and shoot with faster film with a big camera.

The real world answer depends on many more factors than the ultimate test results. If you want to capture still leaves on a windy day, or shoot a fleeting moment - those are the questions that most often determine camera choice, even when you are willing to work as hard as possible to get the "ultimate" quality.

[Dan Fromm]

John, I sort of agree with you for work at normal distances, but for work at magnifications above 1:1 it does pay to calculate the limits before wasting much film. One doesn't have to do it very well or more than once, and I agree with you that the results aren't worth publishing. Dut I think everyone who wants to work much above 1:1 should do the exercise once. The news from it is mainly bad; since we're most of us optimists, finding the bad news ourselves is good for us.

Compare the cavalierly-expressed rules of thumb about optimal aperture given magnification in Brian Bracegirdle's book Scientific Photomacrography with the deeper and mind-numbing treatment of the problem in H. Lou Gibson's Photomacrography. Both authors are highly-experienced, know very well what they're doing, and are very thoughtful. Bracegirdle's advice is easier to apply, Gibson's seems to work a little better.

Cheers,

[paulr]

Frank is right about all those other factors being critical.

Tests like this also presume that test chart resolution equates with subjective quality of a print ... a premise that's been dismissed by most of the research.

I think the results are interesting, but ultimately not very useful. The photodo test take film into account, and in doing so give you more to work with. They also spell out how quality in the smaller formats is much more closely tied to film performance than in the larger ones. This is practical and helpful.

[Eric Leppanen]

I think Bill's test results are useful in illustrating tendencies, not absolute in the real world but something which the photographer should be aware.

Some time back I looked at theoretical maximum lppm at various apertures, and used these as a rough guideline for selecting the best camera system for a particular application. I tend to use 8x10 for infinity shots; grand near-to-far landscape compositions amenable to tilt; and intimate scenes which require little depth of field. Otherwise I will use a smaller format. On balance, I have found 4x5 more gratifying for landscape work than 6x7 (I own a Mamiya 7 also) because I keep running into depth-of-field limitations with 6x7 normal and moderately long lenses due to lack of movement capability (WA lenses are OK). Since IMHO I get better results with 4x5 @ f/45 than 6x7 @ f/22, I typically use the M7 only when I need it's portability or ease-of-use, or need to shoot without a tripod.

Of course to get the most out of 8x10 you need to use top-notch lenses, which many folks do not. I'm getting significantly sharper infinity shots with my relatively exotic APO Tele Xenar convertible than the popular Fuji 600C and Nikkor 800/1200T. On balance I get sharper results (particularly at the edges) with my 300mm APO Sironar-S than the popular 300mm Nikkor-M or Fuji-C. Most folks figure enlargement factors are smaller with 8x10 so they use cheaper lenses, which is fine for contact prints but defeat the purpose of using the format when enlarging. I do relatively large digital prints (30x40") so increased sharpness in the negative does show up in the print.

[Michael S. Briggs]

The photodo article is well worth looking at: http://www.photodo.com/art/35_m9.shtml. But perhaps make your own conclusions from the data that they show. Comparing photos 3 and 4, the 35 mm T-Max 100 has an small edge in resolution compared to 9x12 cm Tri-X, but is a lot grainer. Comparing photos 4 and 6, T-Max 100 in 35 mm and 9x12 cm, the differences don't look "surprising small" to me. Perhaps if all you care about is the finest bars that you can resolve on a test chart...

[Doug Dolde]

To me charts like this are completely useless. Obviously bigger is better but you can't wrap it all up in a nutshell that's anymore accurate than +/- 25% or so.

[QT Luong]

Please try to be a bit more supportive, or at least more kind. In the same spirit, there is another chart that I think would be more interesting. Assume your subject consists of a foreground at distance X and a background at infinity, and you are trying to get the same image (same camera position and field of view) with different formats, and are using the optimal f-stop in each format for this task. Draw a chart that consists of the resolution on film for different values of X, normalized for the film format.

[Neal Shields]

I think this sort of thing is helpful to overcome what I consider borderline unethical marketing of digital cameras.

It brings me back to the night I was at a camera club meeting standing in front of a display of 11x14 contact prints that were excellent both artistically and technically and a fellow camera club member told me he was getting simular results from his Nikon D-100.

There is nothing wrong with his likeing his camera and his results but it is somewhat sad that he has been lead to believe that there isn't a difference.

[Graham Patterson]

I think this work does show the number of variables involved in this sort of comparison. And this is without adding enlarging variables for film output and raster processing controls for digital files.

I know there are different characteristics in the various 35mm, roll-film, and 5x4 equipment I have available. If I repeated these tests myself, I am sure the results would deviate. I would be surprised if the deviation was linear, but the trend would be the same.

We carry comparatively large cameras, with relatively few 'frames' available, because we see an advantage in the controls and the results. I am also impressed with the results obtainable from digital equipment with suitable subjects and a recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of that medium. Personally I would miss the darkroom approach if I had to do yet another aspect of my life at a computer workstation. But I'm too anxious to use what I have than to argue the merits of what I do.

Ultimately, any photographic system is designed to meet a level of expectation. Cameras and lenses used for general photography do not have to exceed that benchmark.

[John_4185]

QT Luong Please try to be a bit more supportive, or at least more kind.

In the same spirit, there is another chart that I think would be more interesting. Assume your subject consists of a foreground at distance X and a background at infinity, and you are trying to get the same image (same camera position and field of view) with different formats, and are using the optimal f-stop in each format for this task. Draw a chart that consists of the resolution on film for different values of X, normalized for the film format.

Aw man, homework? Is it due tomorrow?

Frankly, I believe the author could do us a real service and explain exactly what he is trying to demonstrate. Clarity is important. How many readers so far have just glossed over numbers and seen nothing they can understand? Just me? No problem if it's just me, but give me some specifics that I can take to the shrink! Okay? They won't let me into the fun house there for no reason.

Please.

[bglick]

jj... > In reality, the newcomers will make so many mistakes that if the lens were magically perfect, it wouldn't help them.

I think this is a very unfair generalization..... I went from 35mm straigtht 8x10 with no formal training and found the transition very easy.... at best, I read one book to get started to grasp some of LF uniqueness, such as tilt and bellows extension factors, etc. There is a lot fo 35mm shooters that are VERY knowledgeable in photography, which leads to an easy transitions.

> the metrics are so very elementary and obvious that from day-one I never needed to elaborate upon them in order to justify a larger and sometimes smaller format.

Elementary? Hmmmm, thats odd, the extensiveness of knowledge and calculations to acheive this type of information took me a good 20 hrs, and considering I am an engineer to begin with, I would not consider this elementary. Some of the most complex problems rarely involved high level math, yet the application of the problem is very involved and often very confusing. I would surely put this chart in that category. The fact you never needed an assistance to justify an larger or smaller format, certainly does not mean there isn't others that can benefit from the contribution. It's possible, not everyone is as "photographicaly gifted" as you are? And last I looked, that's what these forums are for right? People helping people?

> Topics mired in optical bench racing are usually begun with an abstract, generally poorly qualified case and go on forever with silly minutiae.

Optical bench? Not here jj, just real world testing or interpolation of such. Very practical in my view. It too me years of testing to reach these conclusions.

> it's all just someone reinventing data, often with irrelevance and in error.

It's interesting how you can draw such conclusions based on one chart. You truly must be gifted, you might be our equivalent of the "Einstein of Photography" ? Anyway, thanks for your contributions, they were very informative.

Frank...

> The practical questions might be along the lines of "If I use really fine grained film in a smaller format could I match or exceed the quality of faster film in a larger format?" Given that you might be able to shoot with a larger aperture and slow film in a smaller format versus needing to stop down and shoot with faster film with a big camera.

Exactly....and its applications like this which can create many, many graphs.... in my case, I was simply trying to reduce the comaprison down to, the same color film, using existing optics and film /sensor in each of the formats.

> The real world answer depends on many more factors than the ultimate test results. If you want to capture still leaves on a windy day, or shoot a fleeting moment - those are the questions that most often determine camera choice, even when you are willing to work as hard as possible to get the "ultimate" quality.

Yes, this chart is not a substitute for general photographic knowledge of many of the variables that can effect a shot. For example, the one point that should have been at least mentioned is.....as the format size was increasing, the shutter speed was decreasing. So when considering two formats close on the list, such as MF and 4x5 in extreme scenes, one has to consider additional losses from subject movement when shooting with 4x5.

Eric....

> Of course to get the most out of 8x10 you need to use top-notch lenses, which many folks do not. I'm getting significantly sharper infinity shots with my relatively exotic APO Tele Xenar convertible than the popular Fuji 600C and Nikkor 800/1200T. On balance I get sharper results (particularly at the edges) with my 300mm APO Sironar-S than the popular 300mm Nikkor-M or Fuji-C. Most folks figure enlargement factors are smaller with 8x10 so they use cheaper lenses, which is fine for contact prints but defeat the purpose of using the format when enlarging. I do relatively large digital prints (30x40") so increased sharpness in the negative does show up in the print.

hence why I stated how I put LF in its best light, using results from only the sharpest lenses, such as Schneider Super Symar XL, 110, 150, Fuji 240A....... I compared all formats in their best light....

Doug, > To me charts like this are completely useless. Obviously bigger is better but you can't wrap it all up in a nutshell that's anymore accurate than +/- 25% or so.

First, one of the great findings of this test was bigger is NOT always (much) better when you consider some of the draw backs of LF such as shutter speed....it cleraly showed just how close the differences can be. And to get any photographic general comparison to +/-25% is usually good enough considering its hard to just get in the ball park.....

Anyway, the lesson I learned is, it's exhausting to share what I consider useful and valuable information..... In the future, I will surely not burden the forum...

QT > Please try to be a bit more supportive, or at least more kind.

Thanks for the life raft.....sheeeeesh.....

> In the same spirit, there is another chart that I think would be more interesting.
Assume your subject consists of a foreground at distance X and a
background at infinity.........

Would you beleive this was my initial goal, and my first crack at this! I based everything on Hyperfocal distances and then graphed the results at different hyperfocal distances. However, I find the hyperfocal calculation in general to be much to general, as so little in taken into consideration, such as lens shaprness, lens MTF, efects of diffraction with 1/R, defocus as it combines with diffraction. So instead, I reduced this chart to using real lenses and test results at different f stops.... one would have to back track with this chart and say, "I know I need this f stop for a given near/far", then find that subset on the graph.

Neal > I think this sort of thing is helpful to overcome what I consider borderline unethical marketing of digital cameras.

I agree with this.... digital results are often highly exaggerated. I have tested digital extensively, and just like LF with its MTF of lenses, MTF of film, film flatness issues, etc.... well, digital has its own subset of issues, whereas there can be NO generalizations that are accurate...

Just to share a brief synopsis of my digitial testing.... I have found that the best DSLR's using CMOS sensors (one shot - not scanning backs) are capable of resolving a range of that is shocking....for example, under a best case scenario, a digital sensor can record up to 77% of its pixel density in lp/mm, when shooting a B&W line chart which is oriented in the same XY pattern as the sensors grid - with interpolation, sharpening, etc. . Quite impressive, huh....

but then, using RED line patterns on the diag. of the sensors grid (full exploitation of sensors XY grid weakness and Green Bias), the best the sensor can resolve is 35% of the sensors lp/mm. This set of two variables show a variance of 100% in resolvability. Add less sharp lenses, and this value can fall as low as 25%. Now, add higher ISO's, moire sensitive patterns, less than optimum f stops, etc., then you can acheive even worse results. Although digital overcomes the film flatness issue, current technology demonstrates amazing vulnerablility to other variables which produce test results from "amazing" to "terrible" .....

So when I read / hear digital results, I wonder just how many of the factors worked in favor or against the sensors weaknesses / strengths. In my chart, I presented digital in a good light also, using the best optics, best interpolation of RAW files and sharpening....

[John_4185]

With respect and appreciation for your enthusiasm and effort, Bill, I still find the report shy of the kind of detail I am accustomed to in scientific studies. It should at least begin with a cogent statement of objective(s), then move into the method in detail, end with a summary ... well, you have seen the stuff. (And gee, don't use boxed bars.)

I still don't get it, but maybe I'm stupid. It's likely that I am. Or distracted. See, I've got this grand unified theory thing to finish, then the quantum computer simulians to iron out (that's what we eggheads call 'bugs' now), and then, what was it... oh yeah, Peace on Earth.

[bglick]

jj > With respect and appreciation for your enthusiasm and effort, Bill, I still find the report shy of the kind of detail I am accustomed to in scientific studies. It should at least begin with a cogent statement of objective(s), then move into the method in detail, end with a summary ... well, you have seen the stuff.

jj, I did this test for my own purpose, not to publish it in a scientific journal. I agree that it sure would be nice to have the graph be fully documented with every detail with pages of footnotes and descriptions, results of prior test data, interpolations, etc. etc..... But, I just don't have the time to produce such documents. Many can gain 90% of the benefits in its current form.

> I still don't get it, but maybe I'm stupid.

Well, I explained it several times, and the concept is very simple.... the title of the graph says it best..... it demonstrates the resolution that can be acheived on a 8" print using different formats, at different f stops, (whereas they all produce the identical DOF) I doubt you are too stupid to understand the concept (as you suggested), but, possibly you are too smart to grasp such simple data? Just a thought... I am burnt out trying to explain it....

[QT Luong]

My comments are not to be taken as a "raft". It is directed at the negativity of remarks such as
"These metrics come back like the flu, over and over again and are about as usefull." or
"To me charts like this are completely useless". Even if one thinks that the work is not useful (I am not among them), he should try to appreciate the work that was put into it, and if he doesn't have anything constructive to say, at least refrain from that kind of statement. That's all I meant.

[bglick]

QT, I think my comment was mis understood...... I was thanking you for tossing me a "life raft" as I was drowning in a sea of negativity, which you obviously picked up on......

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well Bill, what I found useful about your study is that it reaffirmed my belief that we sometimes cannot see the forest for the trees. We get so bogged down on the resolution/sharpness/edge detail, that we miss the fact that everything in photography is a compromise.

Looking at your charts I found curious that the "sweet spot" for your lenses was moderately open. I cannot recall the last time I used f/22 with my 8x10. Even with movements I always give it a little bit more just to be sure so I end up using f/32 and above. Seeing your charts it seems that I have to make a compromise, better resolution against more DOF...... take your pick.. :-)

[Scott Rosenberg]

bill,

firstly, thank you for taking the time to share your findings. i'm sure this study took a real commitment from you and i for one appreciate the fact that you were so bold as to share your work. i can't understand why you're taking such a lashing for it, except for the fact that this forum has really deteriorated of late. a little history, this forum was started as an escape from the negativity so prevalent on photo.net back in the day. ironically, the tone over there is now far more supportive than what i've observed over here lately. too many threads here lately turn into a pissing contest between 2 personalities that very quickly gets completely off subject.

folks, the bottom line is that the data presented here useful to a point; if you find it below you or incomplete, do your own damn experiment.

[bglick]

> We get so bogged down on the resolution/sharpness/edge detail, that we miss the fact that everything in photography is a compromise.

Which is exactly what my chart identified so well, it offered you a "snapshot" of the compromises between formats.

> Looking at your charts I found curious that the "sweet spot" for your lenses was moderately open. I cannot recall the last time I used f/22 with my 8x10. Even with movements I always give it a little bit more just to be sure so I end up using f/32 and above.

Well, the extreme DOF scenes demonstrates just how practical 45 is. To shoot 810 at f45 is almost self defeating in my opinion. Assuming sharpness is your goal. It makes more sense to selectively use 810..., if you only have one camera, a 4x5 reducing back is a really versatile and complimenatry system.

Scott, thank you for the kind words. And yes, I agree with your comments regarding the tone of this, and other threads. I remember dropping off this forum in 2001 for these exact reasons. But since I was bold enough to return to engage a few good minds for some questions I had.... well, in this post, what I thought was a solid contribution, which I spent years formulating, testing and developing - to gain the "snap shot" view of the formats and how they compare with varying DOF......but it turned out to be an exhaustive struggle to defend it's principles / premise. But, it's a free forum, and QT is kind enough to dedicate his valuable time to provide the forum, so you will never hear a complaint from me...... I should have known better. Since I started this thread, I feel obligated to finish it, but after this one, I will quietly drift away again.....

[Sal Santamaura]

First, Bill, please don't leave again. That would mean those who wish to denigrate "win" and those of us who like to read and consider things "lose." Your contributions are interesting.

Second, I've searched this thread and don't find any instance where Bill called what he was posting a "scientific study." He simply said (paraphrase) "here's a spreadsheet that might interest some." Yet some subsequent posts read like peer review comments against submittals to a vaunted journal. Why is that?

It appears there are participants on this forum, and a growing portion of society at large, who lack the ability to engage in polite discourse. Why is that?

[Jay W]

Bill, if you did a bunch of testing and feel 4x5 is "good enough" for you (from a technical aspect). Great. That's that, and get on with shooting. Personally, I have a hard time finding enough time to shoot and enlarge, so I tend to skip over the testing angle of things. Actually, I think medium format gives good enouh resolution for me, but I'm not able to adjust the plan of focus and that's my reasoning for 4x5. If other people have a problem with your testing, I guess they can test for themselves and post their results. BTW, I like your "forest streams" photo.

Jay

[bglick]

Sal, thanks for the kind words, its great to hear from you again.....

> if you did a bunch of testing and feel 4x5 is "good enough" for you (from a technical aspect). Great. That's that, and get on with shooting.

Jay thanks for the compliment on my photos....

> if you did a bunch of testing and feel 4x5 is "good enough" for you (from a technical aspect). Great. That's that, and get on with shooting.

To be clear, what this "snap shot" confirmed to me was..... in many cases, it makes NO sense to lug the weight and size of 810 vs. 4x5...but, under the right circumstances, mainly very large prints and infinity focus, 810 is worth every bit of its weight and size. In no way, was my concensus, 4x5 is good enough for me.... I just bought more 810 film!!