PDA

View Full Version : Which option is the best quality at 16x20 (A2)?



niubi
14-Aug-2007, 03:21
Hi all,

I am going to purchase my first camera with movements (but I am not new to photography!). After much forum reading, I have settled on an Arca Swiss for its precision but I'm trying to figure out the best option for me in terms of format, film processing etc. As my printer can handle up to 17" (A2) size cut sheet paper, this is the largest I am planning to print. I also have a Nikon 9000 scanner.

So, my question is which of the 3 options below will produce the best quality A2 sized prints?

Option 1 is my preferred option but I don't have the opportunity to see what 6x9 film looks like at this size? A2 size is arond x7 enlargement in the 6x9 format. How would the better quality of the Nikon scanner compare to the lower quality V750 with a 4x5 neg (at x4 enlargement)?

How would a digital back at 16mp on an Arca rate in comparison to Options 1 and 2? The P20s can now be had for about $9000US. Processing film in Australia is expensive ($7.70AUD for 1 roll of 120 film and $6+ for 4x5 sheet). I have had allergies in the past with BW chemicals but I could save costs and buy a semi-automated Jobo, with less chemical handling (though I don't have any darkroom access!). Outsourcing for drum scans is an expensive option and I don't have physical space to purchase either a drum scanner (Howtek?) or high-end flatbed (these things are massive!). So is a digital back a better solution (albeit expensive but more convenient!)?.

Apologies for so many questions for my first post.

FWIW, I will be shooting landscape and urban landscape/ architecture. In the 4x5 format, my lenses will be 75mm, 150mm and 210mm.

Cheers.


Options
1. Nikon 9000 with 6x9 Arca Swiss F metric
2. Epson V750 with Arca Swiss Field
3. Phase One P20 digital back with 6x9 Arca Swiss F metric.

evan clarke
14-Aug-2007, 04:12
Consider the 141mm F metric. It give some front options that the field doesn't (different lensboard options). It has a tiny footprint for packing and will give you the most flexibility when photographing. I have quit doing any digital nut have a 9000 and scans from 6x9/6x7 are terrific..Evan Clarke

niubi
14-Aug-2007, 07:22
Thanks Evan.

Are you referring to the F Metric compact 6x9?

Yong-ran Zhu
14-Aug-2007, 07:56
Hi!

I have AR 6x9 F Metric and Nikon 9000. They are wonderful combination for what you want to do. I also have Epson 3800 printer. The 16x20 prints are excellent from 6x9 scanned files. Of course, you need to have very best negatives as you know.

I also do darkroom work. I have enlarged 6x9 negatives to 16x20 silver prints. They are very good, too. To my view, it may be the limit if you want very good prints.

Evan is my friend. He knows that. We do like silver prints better. I use the Silver Rag papers and like them very much. However, they are still the ink prints, which are different from silver gelatin prints. But it is related to individual preference. The digital devices have been improving. They are expensive. For average people, it is hard to update the equipment every year. It is the disadvantage.

I don't have Epson scanner and digital back. I can not comment on them. I do use 4x5 and 8x10 cameras often. If you will do wet darkroom work, then I suggest that you should buy 4x5 AR. The big negatives are always better.

Yong-ran Zhu

Ken Lee
14-Aug-2007, 09:19
If you are doing this for a business, are there any tax incentives that would favor one solution or the other ? In other words, can you depreciate the cost of a scanning back ? Can you expense the film ?

This isn't a trick question. I am not a pro. I am curious. Every country has its own laws.

niubi
16-Aug-2007, 02:58
If you are doing this for a business, are there any tax incentives that would favor one solution or the other ? In other words, can you depreciate the cost of a scanning back ? Can you expense the film ?

This isn't a trick question. I am not a pro. I am curious. Every country has its own laws.

As a business, I can claim film as a tax expense but I can also claim both the camera/ lenses as well as the digital back as a depreciating asset.

My biggest issue is really in deciding which option would produce the best quality output.

So thanks for the comments so far.

Any additional advice from others?.

Thanks.

Jack Flesher
16-Aug-2007, 03:42
16MP direct, 6x9 scanned on a dedicated film scanner and 4x5 scanned on a flatbed are all going to be similar image quality.

However, with the 4x5 when or if you want it, you could have it drum-scanned and it will be superior to all of them -- vastly superior IMO. In fact, it will exceed what current 33/39 MP digital backs can produce.

Also, the process of setting movements is easier on the larger formats, and IMO you should consider this an advantage to the 4x5 too. Finally, 4x5 sheets can be more convenient than roll holders and make it easy to shoot the same set-up with multiple emulsions. Obviously you can do that with roll holders too, you just need to carry one for each emulsion you are using and my experience is multiple MF roll holders get pretty heavy pretty fast. BUT! You can also shoot MF rolls (cheaper film costs) on the 4x5, while you cannot shoot 4x5 on the 6x9. Advantage 4x5, best of all worlds...

And the 6x9 F_Metric is the same price and nearly the same weight as the 4x5 F-Metric, so I am not sure why you would look at the classic field for the 4x5? So me, I'd go the 141x141 4x5 F-Metric option (which is exactly what I did :D)

Cheers,

turtle
18-Aug-2007, 10:21
I totally agree with Jack. I once had a small 6x7/9 view camera and it was a pain compared to 5x4 and all with a smaller neg. 6x9 backs with 5x4 cameras are a doddle. I would go 5x4 and get a 6x9 back. If you have the cash for a MF scanner, bear in mind that an Epson 4990 does a good job on 5x4 negs and is a fraction of the cost of the MF scanner so for little more than a 6x9 outfit you could get the 5x4 outfit AND a 120 RF back AND a flatbed. Picking up a bargain used 5x4 is also relatively easy as there are plenty available. Unless looking at certain digital platforms, the smaller view cameras dont make sense to me. The 5x4 does it all and handles better to boot. As to which is better at a 20x16 (5x4 on flatbed) or (6x9 in dedicated film scanner) I could not say, but would suggest that they are unlikely to be streets apart. As I say, you could do both potentially for the saving on a use 5x4 camera bargain.