Another digital versus analog showdown

[jp]

8x10 film is solid overkill.

"We’ve covered a huge amount of this territory in our previous comparison article, but in summary, 8×10 trounces the Phase One camera for absolute detail but unless you’re printing over three meters wide then it’s not going to be visible."

https://petapixel.com/2020/03/19/8x10-film-vs-150mp-digital-can-150-megapixels-compete/

[Drew Wiley]

Just more filler BS, a half-baked article with no real purpose. 8X10 film in the ring with one hand tied behind its back, as usual. Apples vs oranges. Pick your flavor.

[bob carnie]

Just more filler BS, a half-baked article with no real purpose. 8X10 film in the ring with one hand tied behind its back, as usual. Apples vs oranges. Pick your flavor.

Drew film won..

[DonJ]

Drew film won..

I don't think that matters to Drew.

[Bernice Loui]

"Test" proves much of ZERO...

Another single factor focused "test" that ignores the far greater whole of print making.
BTW, this has ZERO to do with "Winning"...


Bernice





8x10 film is solid overkill.

"We’ve covered a huge amount of this territory in our previous comparison article, but in summary, 8×10 trounces the Phase One camera for absolute detail but unless you’re printing over three meters wide then it’s not going to be visible."

https://petapixel.com/2020/03/19/8x10-film-vs-150mp-digital-can-150-megapixels-compete/

[jp]

Just more filler BS, a half-baked article with no real purpose. 8X10 film in the ring with one hand tied behind its back, as usual. Apples vs oranges. Pick your flavor.

I like having choices of flavor, so long as it's not kool-aid (or flavor-aid)

The purpose of most petapixel articles is clicks. But digital didn't stand up to 8x10 in these limited tests.

In terms of printmaking, nobody wet prints from Velvia. If it actually gets printed, it will be the same options as the digital gear.

[Pere Casals]

8x10 film is solid overkill.

"We’ve covered a huge amount of this territory in our previous comparison article, but in summary, 8×10 trounces the Phase One camera for absolute detail but unless you’re printing over three meters wide then it’s not going to be visible."

https://petapixel.com/2020/03/19/8x10-film-vs-150mp-digital-can-150-megapixels-compete/


Image quality is very expensive in MPix terms, probably the IQ4 yield is well under 100MPix effective, simply because the available lenses won't do more in that small sensor surface.


What is LOL is that a 1970's film Mamiya RB67 will deliver the same image quality than the IQ4. Of course a Pro may prefer the IQ4, absolutely no doubt.

Anyway the RB67 has an advantage, by loading Portra 160 of Velvia 50 we radically modify the spectral footprint, while IQ4 is tied to the spectral sensitivity of its fixed sensor.

Anyway an enthusiast that do not professionally shot hundreds of images dayly would be proud of the RB67 results, matching the IQ4, and if using a sharp film like TMX then the RB67 easily surpasses new MF digital.


One day I was shooting with a friend sporting an IQ3, that day I loaded CMS 20 in the RB: this is being a bad guy :)


One thing is also true, with digital we may easily stitch several shots if subject is static, with film this is not that convenient.

[Luis-F-S]

I don't think that matters to Drew.

+1!!

[Mark Sampson]

These comparisons/arguments remind me of the Mac vs. PC flame wars of a decade or more ago. Those have died down, thankfully.

[C. D. Keth]

Those are pretty nice images but I can shoot a whole lot of film for $52,000 and I don't have to front that amount to start.

[Bruce Watson]

Yawn...

[Drew Wiley]

I can make a precision adhesive filmholder out an an ordinary holder for about 50 cents and untie that hand behind the back. It's not a matter of who won - that's obvious - but in which round, and why.

[Bill Burk]

Film still does what I like and digital still does what I don't like to an image the closer you look.

[Drew Wiley]

I just hope the remanants of the Ottoman Empire of Kodak survives the present financial upheaval. For me, it's film or nothing; and Kodak's selection would be hard to replace. But whatever happens, happens.

[scheinfluger_77]

Those are pretty nice images but I can shoot a whole lot of film for $52,000 and I don't have to front that amount to start.

Just think of the darkroom/finishing areas you could build.

[bob carnie]

Those are pretty nice images but I can shoot a whole lot of film for $52,000 and I don't have to front that amount to start.

I agree with this sentiment, Until these new cameras with huge potential come down in price that comparable to a 4 x 5 equivalent or 8 x 10 equivalent film camera, I see absolutely no reason for the hobbyist or ameture like myself to buy one of these... But if I was
working as a professional photographer today , I think these systems become critical and worthy of consideration as a business expense. I purchased a Lambda to stay in the printing game over 15 years ago, at the time it was imperative.

[Leszek Vogt]

Bob and Don J thanks for being fun. I'm in the process of moving and THIS was what the doctor ordered. Many thanks.

Les

[Bernice Loui]

Shameless plug here..

5x7_13x18cm is often the ideal trade-off sheet film format. Too many only consider 4x5 or 8x10 for many Foto-mythical reasons.
As for why 5x7_13x18cm, it's been discussed-posted many. many, many times on LFF and else where.


Bernice



I agree with this sentiment, Until these new cameras with huge potential come down in price that comparable to a 4 x 5 equivalent or 8 x 10 equivalent film camera, I see absolutely no reason for the hobbyist or ameture like myself to buy one of these... But if I was
working as a professional photographer today , I think these systems become critical and worthy of consideration as a business expense. I purchased a Lambda to stay in the printing game over 15 years ago, at the time it was imperative.

[bob carnie]

Shameless plug here..

5x7_13x18cm is often the ideal trade-off sheet film format. Too many only consider 4x5 or 8x10 for many Foto-mythical reasons.
As for why 5x7_13x18cm, it's been discussed-posted many. many, many times on LFF and else where.


Bernice

I have a 5 x 7 Devere and an 11 x 14 Devere but still shoot 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 .. I like the slight advantage of coverage these two enlargers give me.

[Drew Wiley]

Studio assembly-line product, catalog, or food photography almost mandates the switch. For someone like me, simply trying to bag a very limited number of shots truly worthy of printing, it's another story. If I were still dabbling in commercial architectural photography too, I dunno. Everything commercial now has a "want it yesterday" clientele. But with instant digital feedback, I've seen em constantly peering over the shoulders of the photographer like a vulture, micro-managing them. That would drive me crazy.

[bob carnie]

Studio assembly-line product, catalog, or food photography almost mandates the switch. For someone like me, simply trying to bag a very limited number of shots truly worthy of printing, it's another story. If I were still dabbling in commercial architectural photography too, I dunno. Everything commercial now has a "want it yesterday" clientele. But with instant digital feedback, I've seen em constantly peering over the shoulders of the photographer like a vulture, micro-managing them. That would drive me crazy.

All you would need to do is sick your studio assistant bigfoot after them , then you could shoot in peace...

[Drew Wiley]

Well, the only studio assistant I ever had was certainly not a Bigfoot; I married her. Now it's my butt that gets daily kicked!

[Mark Sawyer]

I tried shooting wet plates in a medium format digital camera once. It made the sensor really sticky...