Why View Camera & Sheet Film Today, in our here and now?

[Bernice Loui]

Before the days and times of digital imaging and image sharing via digitized image data, film based images were one of the primary means of image creation and preservation. All that has changed with digital cameras, phone cameras and near instant transmission of digitized images. Adding to this the traditional "wet" darkroom that was print centric has become less frequent.

Given the daily of digital images transmitted/shared is nearly 4 Billion images and about 750,000 Hours of video..

Seems some image makers have taken an interest in film photography as being "different", with some becoming interested in sheet film as their means to access and create "alternative" image making applying and reviving photographic image making techniques and process that were once long forgotten or abandoned.. Today often done with a hybrid digital-photochemical process or some "purist" making these images in the ways they once were made from lens-camera-photochemical process to achieve that "vintage look".. What ever that might be...

Separation and possible distinction from the vast ocean of digital based images of 4 Billion images and about 750,000 Hours of video...

Or another expression of the age old discussion and debate of Fotographic hardware-image making process

-vs-

Artistic_Expressive creativity using any image making process as their means to an end ?


~Discuss~


Bernice

[ic-racer]

The encounter with digital would be indirect, in that equipment became easier to obtain. Other than that digital is a different medium. For example, movie cameras use focused light rays too, but we don't discuss them here. So, why discuss digital here? I'd take the discussion some where else. Isn't there some digital forum out there. I know there are cine forums.

[maltfalc]

The encounter with digital would be indirect, in that equipment became easier to obtain. Other than that digital is a different medium. For example, movie cameras use focused light rays too, but we don't discuss them here. So, why discuss digital here? I'd take the discussion some where else. Isn't there some digital forum out there. I know there are cine forums.yeah, sure, ask film shooters why they chose film over digital in a digital photography forum... makes perfect sense...

[sharktooth]

I've been asking myself the same question for a while now.

I think the biggest change has been in the way we view images. We've migrated from printed images to electronic imaging in a dramatic way. This is seen in the loss of so many magazines, newspapers, and even personal images. It's all been replaced with electronic imaging on TV and the internet. All the images posted on this site are now digital images, so there's no denying that even we are not immune.

All that being said, there's still a place for printed images in many forms. We've always had paintings and drawings, and that doesn't seem to be going away. What has changed is the way we think about photography. Film photography used to be seen as the ideal way to "document" things, and was much better and faster than a painting or drawing, since the "camera doesn't lie". Of course, we know that the camera can lie, and it can also be used for far more than documentation, but that was it's primary place in the mass media environment. Since we've moved away from printed images to electronic images, the digital camera is now the primary photographic device. That's makes sense, and is probably as it should be.

The view camera and sheet film today aren't practical tools for getting "documentary" photographs, but they're just as relevant as they ever were for human expression. Why do people paint, draw, or take photos with view cameras and film? It's the way we choose to express ourselves and our ideas. It's not good or bad, right or wrong, it's just the way it is.

[Vaughn]

Why do some musicians insist on playing non-electric guitars?! Bloody Want-to-be-Purists! Get with it! Even Bob Dylan figured that out!

Or get rid of the old-fashion instraments altogether and go with purely digital sound. Ludites! :cool:

[Sean Mac]

Seems some image makers have taken an interest in film photography as being "different", with some becoming interested in sheet film as their means to access and create "alternative" image making applying and reviving photographic image making techniques and process that were once long forgotten or abandoned.. Today often done with a hybrid digital-photochemical process or some "purist" making these images in the ways they once were made from lens-camera-photochemical process to achieve that "vintage look".. What ever that might be...

I'm definitely guilty of at least some of that...

I have recently bought some 8x10 holders to allow making images in the ways they were once made.

Been amusing my self with gum...:)

https://i.imgur.com/smvywfM.jpg

Big cameras and sheet film were good enough for the masters....

:)

[Jim Noel]

If you want ot make images with your computer, go right ahead. But please leave those of us deeply involved with film and darkroom to do as we please, and I for one will let you do the same.
A few years ago a well known and highly respected digital photographer was asked by a student in a large group he and I happened to be instructing if it was possible to make prints like mine on a computer. His answer was, "If you want to make prints like Jim's, you'll have to learn to work as he does."
I'll leave it there.

[Tin Can]

I 'do' film as an insane hobby. Age 71, I of course shot film a long time. I took my only photo class 1999. I also bought my first Digi Coolpix 100 (https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/others/100/) and a new F70 for it. The instructor insisted we have a camera with meter. Never used a meter until then. The class was traditional 35mm with enlarged mounted BW prints. I told the professor, I would do all my assignments with both Digi and 35. Within a month I knew film was dying and told him so. We remain in contact.

I don't expect Digi to survive as long as emulsions.

I quit film for 10 years, until I joined here, the date is to the left.

I shoot my iPhone daily

[Sal Santamaura]

Why View Camera & Sheet Film Today, in our here and now?The broader question is "why film (and darkroom prints from it) today?" My answer is: there's only one reason, namely, print life expectancy. As for why a view camera, given the premise that one has decided on a silver halide workflow, that answer must be the same as it's always been, i.e. larger negative sizes and the ability to correct perspective as well as place the plane of focus where one wants it.

If one reviews the archive here, posts from Paul Raphaelson will be found that relate his experience after transitioning to a Nikon D800. Paul reported that, up to print size 11x14, he found his results were just as good as 4x5 negative origination. After spending the last three and a half years with a Nikon D810 and various Sigma Art lenses, I concur. Note that I don't "do" social media, "see" in black and white and still consider my prints to be the final work, with files serving as "negatives" and post-processing (in PhotoPlus X8) to be my "darkroom," where monochrome conversions are performed.

Another factor driving me to ignore the view cameras (I still own and used to regularly use too many, from 4x5 through 11x14) is the lack of darkroom papers that suit my aesthetic for prints. Those available today are too damn shiny -- I'm talking air-dried glossy fiber-based. The least bad is ADOX MCC 110, but even it got glossier several years ago. I communicated with Mirko about correcting/reversing that, but he is constrained by what the market demands: shiny objects. To be clear, mat papers are too dull, incapable of making a real black. Glossy air-dried papers used to be the sweet spot. Just enough shine to support solid blacks but not so reflective as to be obscured in all but carefully configured "gallery" lighting. No more.

Inkjet printing has plenty of its own problems. Mat papers with pigmented inks are not much better than mat darkroom papers. With dye inks they're even worse. Pigmented inks on glossy papers don't just suffer from gloss differential, they're excessively shiny anywhere there's ink, irrespective of density. The only combination that's acceptable to me is dye ink on some glossy papers. At this point I'm using a Canon Pro-100 with Hahnemühle FineArt Baryta Satin. That printer has now been discontinued, but Canon's Pro-200 looks to be the same dye-based system. Prints I make with the Pro-100/Hahnemühle combination are "goldilocks" in terms of reflectivity and black density. On display, they're unlikely to last more than a decade or two. I don't sell any photography. I'm unlikely to last more than a decade or two. It's a tough psychological hurdle for someone who spent more than five decades in darkrooms, but I'm slowly coming to terms with those realities, and enjoying the most beautiful prints I've ever produced.

Circling back to the original point, if something comes up where print life expectancy is important, I'll break out the view cameras and set up my darkroom. I just made some 8x10 contacts for a younger relative who will undoubtedly outlive me by a looooong time. Otherwise, the answer to your question, Bernice, is "no reason." :)

[LabRat]

I think it is a question of deliberation... In the early period of photography, the group making photographs were scientists, professionals, "country gentlemen" etc, as the process was difficult and expensive, but many also needed the results, or wanted to see if it could be done...

A noted photo professor lectured a class a photographer I know attended, and was making a point about the combined rise of freedom of the masses with the arrival of the bicycle and the "detective" dry plate and roll cameras and the social impact of this pairing... Many traditionalists were shocked to see Victorian women, with hoop skirts, on bicycles, taking photos unaccompanied, and thought the world was going to hell in a handbasket!!! Unheard of!!!

Photography always seemed to need a reason to "memorize" a scene or vision... Look at countless snapshots from last century, and you will generally see values reflected in them, like family in front of house, kids, relatives, men by their cars, vacations etc... Photos were not cheap, but was worth it when reflecting their values...

Taking photos now is more accessible then ever, you don't even need a camera, there is one in your fone there ready to be used at a moment's notice... But if someone decided to take it further, might decide to use a camera dedicated to this pursuit... Used to just be a 35mm point & shoot before digital, or up the chain with LF considered to be the top serious choice (like them studio professionals)...

Serious cameras for "serious" results!!!

Steve K

[Tin Can]

Again me!

I found at age 7 the 'MAGIC' of water and film

Still fun!

[Graham Patterson]

At some point an early human spread red earth pigment over their splayed fingers, and grunted the equivalent of 'I made that!'. (And maybe invented unsharp masking? 8-) )

My mind goes into everything I create, but I like to think some part of my physical self/dexterity goes into my art (for some definition or 'art', anyway). That's easier to achieve with a physical, non-digital, medium.

It is also a case of the right tool for the job. I am not using the 8x10 to make a reference picture before a trip to the hardware store - that's what the phone is for...

[Dugan]

Film processing & print production by hand has a 'craft' element to it that is missing in digital.

[Oren Grad]

...there's only one reason, namely, print life expectancy.

Capture life expectancy. Polyester-base sheet film is as stable as it gets. That's why HABS/HAER/HALS still require capture on sheet film even as they have relaxed their print specifications to allow for pigment/carbon inkjet.

EDIT: Not to say that that needs to be one of your reasons - that's up to you, of course. Just something to keep in mind if documentation for the long term is an important purpose.

[abruzzi]

I have no loyalty to film. I stopped shooting it in the early 2000's and was shooting digital exclusively (as a hobby, I'm no pro) from about 2002 until about 2018 or so. I've mostly dropped digital because a few years ago, I had bought a Pentax DSLR and on whim I bought a cheap Pentax SuperProgram to shoot a few rolls of film for nostalgia purposes using some of the lenses I had for my digital Pentax. What I didn't expect was that aspects of the process appealed to me immensely. I almost stopped shooting digital that day (ok, it took me a couple of months.) From then I moved from 35mm to medium format and eventually, large format. I don't think that shooting film gives me better images, necessarily, but I enjoy it much more.

As for jumping up to large format, again, I'm not sure my technique is such yet that I get better images out of large format, compared to medium format, but its something interesting to learn, and doing things to learn something new is 99% of why I do anything.

[Jody_S]

I give the same answer every time to the same question. My LF is performance art. When I need a photograph of whatever, I use my phone like a normal person.

Since I'm not an especially good photographer and its been 25 years since anyone purchased some of my work, I do what I damn well please without worrying what other people think of it.

[Sal Santamaura]

Capture life expectancy. Polyester-base sheet film is as stable as it gets. That's why HABS/HAER/HALS still require capture on sheet film even as they have relaxed their print specifications to allow for pigment/carbon inkjet...Understood, but...


...I don't sell any photography......which was a factor in posting what I did. Emphasized even though you added:


...EDIT: Not to say that that needs to be one of your reasons - that's up to you, of course. Just something to keep in mind if documentation for the long term is an important purpose. :D

[Mark Sampson]

I make photographs because that's what I do. Personally and professionally for... 49/43 years and counting.
I use a 4x5 camera and film because that method suits my image-making needs. After 40+ years with a view camera, I still like doing it. I enjoy the challenge, and haven't run out of ideas yet. And if I work hard enough, maybe I'll get a result worth sharing. It's the best way that I have for dealing with the world.

[RivetGun]

I think this is a really great post Bernice.

I am happy large format is still revered and practiced at a high level that most photographers from a 50 years ago would be proud of. It is different than digital.

Contrast that with phony "enhancements" such as scratches, dirt and jitter that every idiot adds to their $2 video and thinks they have a period correct motion picture. I knew any number of motion picture directors/editors that worked very hard to produce beautiful work and it looks nothing like the current "old film look" propagated and accepted today.

[Ironage]

The finished print is a hand crafted object. Not a file. I just like to be hands on and keep it real.

[Tin Can]

I have a MFA Performance...AKA in EU...Live Art, degree

I absolutely consider Large Format, as act, dance, fight, entertainment, history, forward and story

I will never sell 'Art'. I collect tools, some I sell now, some posthumously

So it goes


I give the same answer every time to the same question. My LF is performance art. When I need a photograph of whatever, I use my phone like a normal person.

Since I'm not an especially good photographer and its been 25 years since anyone purchased some of my work, I do what I damn well please without worrying what other people think of it.

[neil poulsen]

I photograph using black and white film, because I like a silver gelatin image that's enlarged from a medium format or larger negative. They can be absolutely beautiful! (As we all know.) I have the craft to make the kind of silver gelatin images that I want, that have both nice shadows and nice highlights.

I also thoroughly enjoy using a view camera.

But with the absence of "U-Develop" labs that enabled one to enlarge their own C-Type prints, I'm veering away from color negatives. I've gotten some nice results scanning and digitally printing color negatives. But it's so hit or miss, it's a work flow that's wasn't really "meant to be."

I've not yet given digitally printing scanned transparencies a fair try. Unfortunately, at $99 per box of 20, the price of 4x5 transparencies is rising. Don't know if I'll ever give it a fair try. I may be missing out, if I don't. Hmm. Will have to think on that.

So for color work, I've gone in the direction of using a digital back on a medium format view camera. In the earlier days, digital backs were unaffordable. But, they've come way down in price, even for a 39 megapixel back. For optics, I use high quality, film camera lenses. Even with my Rodenstock 35mm f4.5 SW lens, which unbelievably covers the 6x9 format, chromatic aberration is not enough to worry about. (So says a professional architectural photographer friend of mine.) Taking into account that color photography is not my main thing, I like the results that I can get with digital technology.

I tried using DSLR cameras, and they're not for me. They have more flare than I like. I don't see how light can't help but bounce off the walls of the sensor chambers, given that these walls are so tightly compacted around the sensor. Take a look at any photograph with overcast sky taken with these cameras, and you'll see what I mean. And, I bloody well dislike the 2x3 aspect ratio. What a waste of sensor for most images. And, consider the expense of perspective control lenses for these cameras. Jeepers.

Mirrorless cameras are worth investigating; they don't have the deep throats of DSLR cameras.

[pdmoylan]

The pros of continuing to shoot LF color Film:

1. Larger size quality prints (above 24x30 assuming good scans)
2. Greater effective color bit depth and better color differentiation compared to digital (though Adobe RGB offers greater but subtle discernment)
3. LF movements has not been effectively matched by digital options
4. Greater 3D depth

Here are the cons for me:

1. prohibitive cost of 4x5 color film and processing ($10 per image plus shipping)
2. logistics of getting film back and forth to the lab (no longer local options)
3. the difficulty of finding and cost of replacement bellows
4. Few if any remaining repair options for copal shutters - copal shutters no longer made
5. Fewer film choices now then 20 years ago (though most are satisfactory)
6. With seriously damaged and painful shoulders (arthritis and surgery from mishaps along the trail during LF trips), the weight is prohibitive without a sherpa. Perhaps LF on wheels as option?
7. Increasing cost of drum scans (though not prohibitive)
8. The LF arch nemesis, the WIND (along with slow shutter speeds). It seems to me that at least in Mid Atlantic, winds have increased in velocity and frequency.
9. Limited DR of color transparencies
10. Many fewer venues for selling LF prints (fewer galleries who cater to photography) - I don't find on-line options eminently viable for print sales.

Having explored digital color for many years, its facility allows for much more creative opportunities IMHO - without question. I have so many more interesting outcomes with digital but am frustrated with limitations imposed with enlargement and color fidelity (though I continue to work on digital outcomes).

On the other hand, I would continue to use LF for monumental images, those you want to greatly enlarge.

[Bernice Loui]

Curious about the "color fidelity" comment. Please expand-explain.

What appears to be the limitation on enlargement?


Bernice





I have so many more interesting outcomes with digital but am frustrated with limitations imposed with enlargement and color fidelity (though I continue to work on digital outcomes).

[Hugo Zhang]

Because I have never owned or learned how to use a digital camera, never learned how to photoshop. A lousy user of enlarger. Too dumb, stubborn and old to learn new things.
Because I like to look at upside down images on the ground glass, enjoy contact prints and all the frustrations and bliss that comes with wet darkroom process.

[Peter Lewin]

As many of you, and I am sure Bernice, know, this question gets asked periodically. My answer is always the same: I enjoy the process, I wouldn't argue that the end product from either film or digital is "better" than the other.

Pre-Covid, I would attend the AIPAD (Association of International Photographic Art Dealers) show annually in NYC. Everything from the dawn-of-photography museum-grade prints to the most current gallery art was on display for sale (almost always at prices way beyond what I could afford). But the point was that you could buy a vintage silver print by Ansel Adams or Strand or William Clift, or a large-scale digital print by Julie Blackmon or Stephen Wilkes. I would see many prints in either medium that I would have loved to own, hence my comment that I don't differentiate between film or digital on the basis of quality.

But at my humble personal level, I simply enjoy the process of using the view camera, developing the big negatives, and making silver prints. I use my digital camera when my wife's school, or my synagogue, request work for a catalog or for the web, but I don't get much satisfaction from that process. I belong to a photography group that meets monthly (sadly now via Zoom) to critique each other's work. It isn't a "camera club," the end-goal is to put together exhibitions or circulate information about other exhibitions where members can display their work. One member, in a discussion similar to this thread, stated that one virtue of digital was that once you had your final file in the form you wanted, you could print any number of prints, in any size, that you wanted. Since he sells work, he felt that was important. But the comment crystallized for me the reason I enjoy making darkroom prints: it is a craft, and no two prints (assuming you dodge and burn, etc.) will ever be exactly the same. So the difference is not the quality of the final product (in my own judgement) but a major difference in the process needed to get there.

[pdmoylan]

[QUOTE=Bernice Loui;1605079]Curious about the "color fidelity" comment. Please expand-explain.

What appears to be the limitation on enlargement?

Go to 200% on the same detail, 4x5 film vs digital, both color. You will see more color differentiation with film assuming similarly sized files. In that sense, the digital output has less accuracy in those details. Several tests including by Charles Cramer prove this out. It’s not that there isn’t comparable detail, but perhaps we can say that film is a bit more refined from a color output perspective.

Next, PD Online performed an accuracy test of digital color by camera, and what was noteworthy is the amount of significant deviation from accurate color in virtually all high end units. PO and Hasselblad were not included and I have no direct experience with either to draw any conclusion. I can say that my experience with the Fuji GFX50s seems to add to the mystery of why digital output is so very materially “off” from what I am accustomed to seeing with 4x5 Provia, Velvia 100F, Astia (no longer available) Kodak E100g.

In fact I cannot get Fuji digital files where I like them so I have discontinued using the GFX If fact, the colors are so “plastic” at times, greens can be neon-ridiculous, reds turn pink, yellows muted, and in low light there is an annoying warm bias which I can’t easily fix. Canon has a yellow bias overall, and Nikon has shifted also to a warm bias starting with the D810 and thereafter.

Some adjustments with digital cameras are manageable, Fuji is not IMO, and I have spent countless hours trying). I recognize Dykinga and others are using GFX, but I don’t see the images as comparable to film. Some come close perhaps. I understand from multiple sources that Leica SL2 colors are much less saturated and more accurate than most of the market but if I invest in anything it will be hasselblad.

IMO, it is the lack of color differentiation in the digital that contributes to the lack of “pop” that I am accustomed to with film - nothing scientific. This is why I default to Adobe RGB to increase that differentiation for prints (subtle but there is some slight improvement).

One can ask “is color film accurate”, and I guess it all depends on what you like/get used to. I work hard to maximize detail and color fidelity and it has always been somewhat challenging with digital.

[SergeyT]

Go to 200% on the same detail, 4x5 film vs digital, both color. You will see more color differentiation with film assuming similarly sized files. In that sense, the digital output has less accuracy in those details. Several tests including by Charles Cramer prove this out. It’s not that there isn’t comparable detail, but perhaps we can say that film is a bit more refined from a color output perspective.


https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/11/the-mysterious-case-of-the-missing-berries-and-other-stories/

[SergeyT]

... Mat papers with pigmented inks are not much better than mat darkroom papers. With dye inks they're even worse. Pigmented inks on glossy papers don't just suffer from gloss differential, they're excessively shiny anywhere there's ink, irrespective of density.

Of these #1 and #2 not problems.
#3 and #4 have been already solved by some manufactures long time ago.


The only combination that's acceptable to me is dye ink on some glossy papers
Out of printer these look nice but can't stand any moisture whatsoever and fade fast.

[lassethomas]

Since the output of both film and digital is an image, it's easy to forget how much the technical possibilities and limitation of each technical platform influences the outcome.
As I see it you can't separate the technical process from the outcome as they push for wholy different creative processes.

An analogy comes from the recording industry (I am a sound engineer ) where the movement from tape (analog) to hard disk (digital) recording has transformed not only how you record but also the result. Tape is hard, cumbersome and expensive to edit, so focus in the good old analog days was on performance. It was important that musicians could play a whole song in one take. A few lesser mistakes sometimes had to pass for an otherwise very good take.
Nowdays, when you in seconds can chop up any recording and copy the best 4 bars around, you get the best same snippet in every chorus and every verse. Focus has moved to arrangement and structure instead of performance.
The same goes for pitch corrections on vocals. On an old recording you can often hear a few notes slightly out of tune. Nowdays that's unheard of, at least in mainstream music. Everything is pitch corrected.
Music doesn't sound the same as before.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, only different. And technical platform and creative outcome is interlinked.
A film photographer and a digital photographer would never create the same picture of an identical setting.

[Jim Noel]

Permanency is important to many.
I have printed paper negatives from the1840's on rag paper sensitized by the salted paper process, the method available at that time. . How many digital images will be recognizable in 180 years?
Also, I have color positives which i made in 1939. These and their original Kodachromes show no signs of fading. How many pixelated prints made today will be usable in 90 years?
Also I wonder what percentage of images made digitally ever get printed so they will be available for grandchildren and great grand-children to view.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Mat papers with pigmented inks are not much better than mat darkroom papers. With dye inks they're even worse. Pigmented inks on glossy papers don't just suffer from gloss differential, they're excessively shiny anywhere there's ink, irrespective of density...


Of these #1 and #2 not problems.
#3 and #4 have been already solved by some manufactures long time ago...I'm not sure of your number references, but to me all the things I wrote about are problems that have not been solved by any manufacturers whose products are accessible to home users without the space or budget for whatever you might be referring to. I've tried well-respected pigment printers and a wide variety of papers from all the big-name medium makers. Not acceptable to me.


...The only combination that's acceptable to me is dye ink on some glossy papers...


...Out of printer these look nice but can't stand any moisture whatsoever and fade fast.

First, I neither live in the tropics nor subject inkjet prints to water. Second, the particular combination of printer, ink and paper has a substantial influence on print life expectancy. Check out Aardenburg's fade test results. Finally, you seem to have overlooked another part of what I posted:


...I don't sell any photography. I'm unlikely to last more than a decade or two. It's a tough psychological hurdle for someone who spent more than five decades in darkrooms, but I'm slowly coming to terms with those realities, and enjoying the most beautiful prints I've ever produced...

After three years, my Canon Pro-100 / Hahnemühle FineArt Baryta Satin prints stored in portfolio boxes are indistinguishable from those of the same files run off today. After two years on display under AR (but not "museum," i.e. UV filtered) glass in an environment that subjects them to ten hours per day of office fluorescent light, I cannot see any difference between my Canon Pro-100 / Hahnemühle FineArt Baryta Satin prints and those run off today from the same files. My inkjet prints are indeed fugitive, but not to a degree that has any practical significance to me.


Permanency is important to many...Yes, and the application determines what degree of print permanence is necessary.


...I have color positives which i made in 1939. These and their original Kodachromes show no signs of fading. How many pixelated prints made today will be usable in 90 years?...My Kodachrome slides only go back as far as the 1960s. Those, like yours, show no signs of fading. However 90 years from now I suspect that, unless someone takes over their storage and goes to extraordinary preservation lengths, those transparencies will have disintegrated as their acetate base "vinegars."


...I wonder what percentage of images made digitally ever get printed so they will be available for grandchildren and great grand-children to view.Having served as executor for three estates, I know that almost all prints end up in landfills. A small selection might be desired by a subset of heirs, but many times not even that. Finally, just to underscore how suitable dye-based inkjet prints are for me, I have no children. :)

[Bernice Loui]

Example of the color problem exampled in this link posted?
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/11/the-mysterious-case-of-the-missing-berries-and-other-stories/

"Most of you will no doubt have heard of the Bayer array or mosaic. This is a way of getting colour out of a sensor that only really records brightness per pixel. It does this by clustering four pixels together, two green, one red and one blue, and then interpolating between them to reconstruct the missing colours. The main problem with this is the lack of red and blue pixels - it means that fine detail in red or blue can have issues. Anything with a red texture (or blue, but we’ll stick with red to reduce repetition) will end up with only a quarter of the supposed megapixels of the camera. However, there is also a more insidious problem in that if you have pixel level red colour detail and those pixels fall on the green or blue pixels (highly likely) then that colour just dissapears, completely."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is very real problem with any single chip color imager using a Bayer color separation array. A technological limitation baked into this technology that cannot be fixed in software as the image created consist of infinitely variable color information acquired by the image sensor.

Going back into the world of the first color television technology with three color image tubes (Red-Green-Blue) and color channel information stored separately then combined to reproduce the color image. Technicolor films (RGB as black & white films) uses similar approach to record and reproduce color images.

The obvious solution to this problem in digital single chip cameras would be to design-produce a three chip color camera applying this same proven and well understood technology to digital color image data. Barrier would be cost, market awareness, market need and if this technology can find an audience that appreciated it enough.

Color film has a different set of issues due to color layers being stacked, yet this problem has been worked out pretty good as color film technology progressed.

Setting this basic technology problem aside, some of the problem goes back to points of color reference for digital images and how the points of reference can be altered or bent during the data transmission and data translation into image process.

For those working in color transparency film back in the days when color accuracy was mandatory, the entire image creation system was calibrated and stability of this system maintained best-possible. Calibration was made to absolute standards accepted by all involved. Example was previously posted, here it is again.

Known good/not faded Mcbeth color chart. Set it up in studio illuminated with the strobe or lighting to be used. The example used a Elinchrom 404 pack (4,000 watt/second), S head with a Bronocolor soft box. One aspect of what defined a high quality strobe unit was stability of color temperature (typically 5000K, minimal UV) and absolute stability of light output per flash once set (1/10 f-stop). Incident meter (Minolta flash IV in this case) the set up with Mcbeth color chart, set strobe power as needed, film in camera, make exposure based on the incident meter reading. Take the film in holder to The New Lab, request Gray card test for this sheet. This is what comes back:

One 8x10 sheet of Agfachrome RS100, 14" Goerz LD artar at f16 in barrel, Sinar camera with Sinar shutter.
217040

The New Lab includes a sheet with the color density information and recommended Color Correction filtration based on density of each color channel.
217041

This calibrates the lighting and light modifiers, film, lens, E6 processing for color balance and density (exposure and actual film sensitivity to light/ film speed processed in The New Lab). These are and become highly controlled conditions resulting in revealing the actual color personality of the film, the films actual speed or light sensitivity with the color balance of the lighting system and lens as a system. Side product is accuracy of the incident light meter and calculated bellows factor.

Color judgement by eye is difficult in many ways due to how the eye-brain compensated for light color temperature, perception of color and individual preferences for colors. It is accepted the measurements define the basic color balance. Once this is established, artful alteration of color balance can be applied if needed or desired. Know color balance must be viewed under standardized color illumination, typically 5000K for daylight and 3200K for tungsten using white-gray-black, NOT a specific color view in the image.

Question becomes, how is color calibration done in digital image systems, how can the entire system be consistent across all viewers of color image data?


Bernice


[QUOTE=Bernice Loui;1605079]Curious about the "color fidelity" comment. Please expand-explain.

What appears to be the limitation on enlargement?

Go to 200% on the same detail, 4x5 film vs digital, both color. You will see more color differentiation with film assuming similarly sized files. In that sense, the digital output has less accuracy in those details. Several tests including by Charles Cramer prove this out. It’s not that there isn’t comparable detail, but perhaps we can say that film is a bit more refined from a color output perspective.

Next, PD Online performed an accuracy test of digital color by camera, and what was noteworthy is the amount of significant deviation from accurate color in virtually all high end units. PO and Hasselblad were not included and I have no direct experience with either to draw any conclusion. I can say that my experience with the Fuji GFX50s seems to add to the mystery of why digital output is so very materially “off” from what I am accustomed to seeing with 4x5 Provia, Velvia 100F, Astia (no longer available) Kodak E100g.

In fact I cannot get Fuji digital files where I like them so I have discontinued using the GFX If fact, the colors are so “plastic” at times, greens can be neon-ridiculous, reds turn pink, yellows muted, and in low light there is an annoying warm bias which I can’t easily fix. Canon has a yellow bias overall, and Nikon has shifted also to a warm bias starting with the D810 and thereafter.

Some adjustments with digital cameras are manageable, Fuji is not IMO, and I have spent countless hours trying). I recognize Dykinga and others are using GFX, but I don’t see the images as comparable to film. Some come close perhaps. I understand from multiple sources that Leica SL2 colors are much less saturated and more accurate than most of the market but if I invest in anything it will be hasselblad.

IMO, it is the lack of color differentiation in the digital that contributes to the lack of “pop” that I am accustomed to with film - nothing scientific. This is why I default to Adobe RGB to increase that differentiation for prints (subtle but there is some slight improvement).

One can ask “is color film accurate”, and I guess it all depends on what you like/get used to. I work hard to maximize detail and color fidelity and it has always been somewhat challenging with digital.

[Ron in Arcata California]

Digital work should have started with another name. For example digiography or pixelography. As soon as it took over in main stream camera work the war started. Too bad. I do both but would prefer photography stay pure as it was originally conceived. I often label photos entered in competition as "digicrap" and they still get accepted. Sad.

[pdmoylan]

Bernice,

So if you eliminate the Bayer array, do the results at the pixel level compare favorably to B&W film in terms of tonal range?

I have seen some use a “monochrome” digital camera (sans Bayer), and shoot 3 images using different color filters, then merging the files in PS. I was less than excited about the end results.

Is there any other method of “adding” color post facto? In other words, without the Bayer array, can sensors record color and actual color be realized. My sense is no.

PD

[Sal Santamaura]

Never should have been called "photography." Digital work should have started with another name. For example digiography or pixelography...This is elitist nonsense. It's all photography. Implying that it isn't flies in the face of both reality and this site's definition of large format photography.


...As soon as it took over in main stream camera work the war started. Too bad...It is indeed too bad that those who deny reality and apparently feel a need to elevate their work based on the sensor they use (film) for photography started and perpetuate that war.


...I often label photos entered in competition as "digicrap"...Sad.Extraordinarily sad.

[SergeyT]

...

So if you eliminate the Bayer array, do the results at the pixel level compare favorably to B&W film in terms of tonal range?

I have seen some use a “monochrome” digital camera (sans Bayer), and shoot 3 images using different color filters, then merging the files in PS. I was less than excited about the end results.

Is there any other method of “adding” color post facto? In other words, without the Bayer array, can sensors record color and actual color be realized. My sense is no.

PD

Apparently pixel-shift technology "reduce the reliance on interpolation by capturing color data for red, green, and blue for each resulting pixel by physically moving the camera's sensor" : https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/amp/photography/tips-and-solutions/pixel-shift-shootout-olympus-vs-pentax-vs-sony-vs-panasonic

[Bernice Loui]

Deleting the Bayer array removes the ability for a single chip image sensor to produce color images. It is the Bayer array and Demosaic math (aka algorithms) that makes color digital images possible using a single chip image sensor.

Non Bayer array imagers that are silicon based would result in a "monochrome" imager.., Yes. Differences still remain as Silicon based imagers do not have the same light spectral sensitivity as orthochromatic or panchromatic film. To simulate orthochromatic or panchromatic film, using a silicon based imager, filters are applied to bend the spectral response of the silicon based imager to some what equal film. Filters involved, infrared suppression hot mirror or IR high pass filter, visual spectral compensation filter and often some form of optical anti aliasing filter. Other adders are micro-lens arrays to aid in light gathering for the image sensor and-or back lighting to bias or aid to increase light sensitivity.

Once the imager array data is acquired, math is applied to recover this data(information) converting it into a visible image. Within this process, all sorts of software centric alterations can be applied from effective Gamma curve bending to extra images inserted and far more.

Does all this result in images from the silicon based image sensor being identical to film, not really as they are inherently and fundamentally different in how images are recorded.

There was a time when the video folks were driven with piles of monetary motivation to create the "film" look. Plenty of resources were poured into this endeavor resulting in video being sorta-like film, but not the actual film look.

IMO, the two image making technologies (digits-data & film) should live happy together accepting the fact and reality they both have something special and unique to offer in the finished print. This should Never Be a Contest over which is better or tops.. While there is an aspect of human impulses that can be driven to pursue and declare this the trail of results from this struggle is often self-destructive in often invisible ways.


Bernice











Bernice,

So if you eliminate the Bayer array, do the results at the pixel level compare favorably to B&W film in terms of tonal range?

I have seen some use a “monochrome” digital camera (sans Bayer), and shoot 3 images using different color filters, then merging the files in PS. I was less than excited about the end results.

Is there any other method of “adding” color post facto? In other words, without the Bayer array, can sensors record color and actual color be realized. My sense is no.

PD

[Bernice Loui]

"The greatest challenge facing pixel-shift image capture is motion. The process requires, at minimum, four times the exposure time of single image capture."


There is "No Free Lunch".. each and every technological endeavor has trade-offs dictated and enforced by the way Nature really is.

Bernice



Apparently pixel-shift technology "reduce the reliance on interpolation by capturing color data for red, green, and blue for each resulting pixel by physically moving the camera's sensor" : https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/amp/photography/tips-and-solutions/pixel-shift-shootout-olympus-vs-pentax-vs-sony-vs-panasonic

[Durst L184]

Why do some musicians insist on playing non-electric guitars?! Bloody Want-to-be-Purists! Get with it! Even Bob Dylan figured that out!

Or get rid of the old-fashion instraments altogether and go with purely digital sound. Ludites! :cool:

Presumably you are being facetious. But just in case you are not, let's walk through this line of thinking anyway. For I have certainly heard claims like it put quite seriously, and it even seems that the original question itself relies upon an uncritical presumption that the proliferation of digital imagery "in our here and now" somehow recommends itself simply because it is "here and now."

Here goes: Since Bob Dylan likes electric guitars (special products of the "here and now"), one should embrace ink jet prints made from digital files because they, too, are special products of the "here and now." Then, of course, one must be quick to see that if he himself likes acoustic and electric guitars, then it's just a matter of clearing-up one's thinking to realize that one should also enjoy digitally produced images (especially on a tiny computer conveniently manufactured in the size of a human hand) --after all only Luddites fail to appreciate that every new technological feat is a cultural advance.

Scales begin to fall from one's eyes. And as one gains more insight into this esoteric mode of knowledge, one might even begin to wonder if somehow hidden in one's love of fresh orange juice is just a deep psychological prejudice against concentrated orange juice, orange "drinks" and a fundamental inability to grasp the remarkable progress realized in contemporary life.

Well, perhaps I will give this line of thinking a go. Who knows? I might actually change my view that I think that those amidol-contact-printing Luddites have, historically, gotten a bad rap. And I might even come to discover that somewhere hidden in my (there, here, yesterday, now, and tomorrow) irrational, stubborn, and obsolete love of fresh orange juice is an undeveloped and probably repressed fetish for garish digital imagery.

[Vaughn]

Not facetious, but satirical. Nothing so complicated as to need that many words...:cool:

[Tin Can]

This is a word site, not image site

[Durst L184]

This is a word site, not image site

Says the man with 16,000 posts and counting.

Well, Vaughn. I would say a bit too undeveloped for satire. You needed a few more words.

[Tin Can]

I post images

Do you




Says the man with 16,000 posts and counting.

Well, Vaughn. I would say a bit too undeveloped for satire. You needed a few more words.

[Durst L184]

I post images

Do you

No. Didn't you understand my post? I am a fresh orange juice Luddite. But when I get a chance, i will have a look at the 16,000 images that you posted. Tell the truth TC --you have a fetish for digital imagery, and my post struck a cord.

[Drew Wiley]

Whenever I post images, it's with a thumbtack to a wall; but I prefer actual picture frames. Anything web-related in the same room comes from the spiders.

[Tin Can]

I found your website with your art on the wayback machine

Maybe it's still there

You have admitted you now use a Digi

I actually read your wall of words

Peace


Whenever I post images, it's with a thumbtack to a wall; but I prefer actual picture frames. Anything web-related in the same room comes from the spiders.

[Tin Can]

Mr Durst

Please join my selfie thread, LF ONLY

2021 Self Portraits

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?161602-2021-Self-Portraits&p=1581609&viewfull=1#post1581609





No. Didn't you understand my post? I am a fresh orange juice Luddite. But when I get a chance, i will have a look at the 16,000 images that you posted. Tell the truth TC --you have a fetish for digital imagery, and my post struck a cord.

[MAubrey]

There's a reason that in the digital world, foveon sensors have a small cult following. The colors.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, reduced image processing compared to Bayer array sensors that must apply Demosaic math to recover the sensor image.

Foveon image sensors (Sigma camera/lenses) have their own set of trade offs, light sensitivity with related to shutter speed, limited products using them and APS-C sensor size at this time.

"No Free Lunch" again.

Bernice



There's a reason that in the digital world, foveon sensors have a small cult following. The colors.

[pdmoylan]

The Foveon sensor has been around in some form for several years, and as Bernie suggests, there are few choices without sever limitations, other than H6D-100c and IQ4, both out of bounds for those of modest means, but each with perhaps more accurate color? A new Rodenstock 90MM for the XF will cost you $13k which is high-end Leica territory. Not for the faint of heart nor shallow pockets.

I am considering a new Shen Hao with 350MM bellows and rear rise (at least) to supplement my current long term photo projects, in the meantime waiting impatiently for that digital holy grail (and it ain't GFX). I'll get someone to help with the carrying part. My heavy Toyo and Linhof 4x5s will continue to attract spiders in the basement (both needing new bellows).

[Bernice Loui]

The Hasselblad H6D-100c advertise at 400MP is ... marketing. To achieve what they are AD-ing required capturing more than one image of an object with near zero movement then effectively stacked in software. Sensor is mechanically moved by a piezo position_er to created the color shifted set of images. LOTs can go wrong with this approach and simply not suitable at all for objects that are not dead still.

https://www.hasselblad.com/h-system/h6d-400c-multi-shot/

Phase One IQ4 is more of the same stuff Phase One has been doing for years. Intrinsic problems with trying to reproduce accurate color with a single imager remains. Nyquist–Shannon holds, Moiré effect holds and Nature will not be denied. Three color video camera technology goes back to the 1950's.
http://www.earlytelevision.org/Reitan/color_cameras.html

Question becomes, when will this happen for digital still cameras?

No thanks on that Rodenstock 90mm for the XF, as there are already enough optics previously made that could-would equal it's optical performance. Challenge becomes the lens mount and interface which has become one of the prime means for brands to exclude alternatives and force users from straying too far from their "farm"..

Another shame_less plug, Toyo or Linhof bellows tired, knackered with photons escaping or entering without a pass? Sinar bellows interchange in seconds with an easy and plentiful supply at very modest cost. The prime wear item on a view camera is the bellows. Image stopper would be a shattered ground glass.. Other than these two item, view cameras are mostly problem free.


Bernice









The Foveon sensor has been around in some form for several years, and as Bernie suggests, there are few choices without sever limitations, other than H6D-100c and IQ4, both out of bounds for those of modest means, but each with perhaps more accurate color? A new Rodenstock 90MM for the XF will cost you $13k which is high-end Leica territory. Not for the faint of heart nor shallow pockets.

I am considering a new Shen Hao with 350MM bellows and rear rise (at least) to supplement my current long term photo projects, in the meantime waiting impatiently for that digital holy grail (and it ain't GFX). I'll get someone to help with the carrying part. My heavy Toyo and Linhof 4x5s will continue to attract spiders in the basement (both needing new bellows).

[John Power]

I just started shooting film in April and shoot half frame to 4x5. I came to this from astro imaging for a year. I got so, so sick of sitting in front of a computer... a different computer to the computer i sit in front of all day at work, but still a computer.
I'm now printing in a "darkroom", my garage (not on full-ish moon nights) and I'm still in the phase of looking at negatives with wonder, prints developing front of my eyes in wonder. I don't think I'm alone in enjoying being away from a computer screen in my spare time.

[Corran]

Allow me to flip the script here for a moment: Why does one need to justify the use of a certain tool or medium to others?

[Tin Can]

We don't

I, especially way into retirement do whatever I want whenever

only one real goal

stay out of jail

but that has always been my mantra

Today, eagerly await delivery of 3rd Imagon

just as a child, I loved to buy stuff off cereal boxes

denouement



Allow me to flip the script here for a moment: Why does one need to justify the use of a certain tool or medium to others?

[John Kasaian]

Learn "Sunny 16" so no batteries are required.
Think of all the money you'll save!
You'll also be able to take photographs during Carrington events :rolleyes:

[Tin Can]

We are due for a Carrington event

I shot 35mm for 4+ years using Sunny 16, a photo instructor insisted I get a new camera with a meter 1999, I really liked AF

I always test myself with Sun 1t before meter


Learn "Sunny 16" so no batteries are required.
Think of all the money you'll save!
You'll also be able to take photographs during Carrington events :rolleyes:

[Kirk Gittings]

Allow me to flip the script here for a moment: Why does one need to justify the use of a certain tool or medium to others?

Exactly I tired of this argument 10 years ago.

[BrianShaw]

Exactly I tired of this argument 10 years ago.

More than twenty (and quite possibly thirty) ago for me!

[Sal Santamaura]

...Why does one need to justify the use of a certain tool or medium to others?One doesn't need to. Those who reply to the question choose to. Perhaps in order to induce frustration by providing a well-justified "no reason" response. :)

[Tin Can]

Art Police

as for Carrington event, right now 1A NPR is chatting up preppers

[lifted_spirit]

I photograph digital and film. I manually meter each of my film cameras, and the larger the format, the slower and more intentional I become. While I take my digital camera and lenses out on long hikes, I prefer photographing with my 6x7 MF and 4x5 LF cameras because they slow me down so much. It's a much slower, intentional, meditative process. I do it as much for the process and workflow than anything else.

[Jim Noel]

The Foveon sensor has been around in some form for several years, and as Bernie suggests, there are few choices without sever limitations, other than H6D-100c and IQ4, both out of bounds for those of modest means, but each with perhaps more accurate color? A new Rodenstock 90MM for the XF will cost you $13k which is high-end Leica territory. Not for the faint of heart nor shallow pockets.

I am considering a new Shen Hao with 350MM bellows and rear rise (at least) to supplement my current long term photo projects, in the meantime waiting impatiently for that digital holy grail (and it ain't GFX). I'll get someone to help with the carrying part. My heavy Toyo and Linhof 4x5s will continue to attract spiders in the basement (both needing new bellows).

I'm certan that some beginners or upgraders' in LF would love to have those cameras for what you must think they are worth.

[Jim Noel]

I just started shooting film in April and shoot half frame to 4x5. I came to this from astro imaging for a year. I got so, so sick of sitting in front of a computer... a different computer to the computer i sit in front of all day at work, but still a computer.
I'm now printing in a "darkroom", my garage (not on full-ish moon nights) and I'm still in the phase of looking at negatives with wonder, prints developing front of my eyes in wonder. I don't think I'm alone in enjoying being away from a computer screen in my spare time.

Good for you John. Enjoy film.
Jim

[Drew Wiley]

Since Mr. Rattling Can has taken a vow of silence in the monastery, maybe he can still read. A number of posts back, he claimed I admitted to now doing digital photography. Whaaaar did thet come from? I've never done digital photography in my life. I did buy a nice full frame digi SLR for sake of use on the copy stand in the lab, in order to catalog actual darkroom prints. And that's where it stays. But that hardly makes me a digital photographer. It's still all real film : 4X5, 8X10, 6X9, 6X7, rarely 35mm.

[Scraps]

My take: digital is about the distribution of images. Film is about crafting an image. More or less. I do take a 50MB Canon on multi-day backpacking trips now. Carrying 20lbs of film gear in addition to camping gear for 7 days is getting a bit much, but it's such a joy to shoot. I don't see film as a slow process. I usually have to hurry to catch the right conditions, or scurry to a better spot, or rush to pack up before a storm hits.

[Dan6077]

I like to experiment with the plane of focus movements with my field camera
Something not available with standard cameras, digital or analog

Dan

[John Kasaian]

Why?
For me, futzing around with old cameras, 8x10 negatives, contact prints and toxic emulsions makes me smile.

[BBW]

+1 on that!