Chucking it and going to DSLR? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Dave Aharonian

19-Oct-2009, 17:46

I've almost always shot LF - mostly 5x7 and 4x5. In the past I used to cram my Toyo 4x5 into my sea kayak when paddling on the west coast. As much as I love LF it was way too much of a pain in the ass, so this past year I started taking my Canon 5DII instead. I have to admit I'm getting more shots that I'm happy with mainly because its less gear to haul around and much quicker to use. I'm not 100% happy with the resolution of the lenses though. My main lens is a 24-70 zoom which I use a lot for work, but it does not compare to a nice LF neg. For me, its a compromise, but the DSLR has allowed me to be more productive in my shooting in these circumstances.

But when I'm not kayaking, it LF all the way!!

Marko

19-Oct-2009, 17:55

Why does it have to be an either-or proposition?

Why not get a DSLR and keep a 4x5? Try it out, shoot both for some time and see if one gets consistently left behind. 16x20 is not a problem with latest DSLRs, but they will have different character. So shoot both for a while and make up your mind. Then sell one or keep both.

Frank Bagbey

19-Oct-2009, 18:03

Were you in to making really big, quality enlargements? If not, who cares which way you go? It will not matter. If you were into fine art big enlargements you will regret going digitial, especially for black and white.

Frank Petronio

19-Oct-2009, 18:10

Once I went from an 8x10 to a Nikon D70 for a season and I spent the difference on travel and shooting. So the D70 made a lot better photos than the 8x10. Do what makes you happy but consider that great photos of your experiences can be photographed with any camera, it's not the price or resolution that matters.

Greg Blank

19-Oct-2009, 18:37

I would never switch from a large format camera at this current climate, that is to do "landscapes". Canon and Nikon would have to do something drastic in terms of price to get me to buy another DSLR camera and it would have to be at least 24 megapixels. Lenses however I am always considering.

I have been shooting LF for about 22 years. I have been shooting digital for 5 now. Currently I have a ten megapixel D200. Although I have some great shots from the digital I don't like them at 11x14 or larger (that's me the grain sniffer). Most are made with mid range lenses. I do have a used 300mm 2.8 It cost me $$$$ You will be buying expensive lenses if you want to come close to a MF type resolution. You may be happy with the color rendering which I admit can be good...but for now using a good 4x5 lens you can't touch 4x5 and its resolution.

If you just want to travel and take small imagery a DSLr is great or if resloution is not a big factor.

Not sure if it is my mood, but suddenly today I started thinking about giving up the 4x5 and buying a DSLR.

So - if you we're to switch to DSLR, what camera would you buy and why?

I shoot mainly landscapes, flora, and am interested in large wall prints up to 16x20.

You can talk me off the ledge if you like!

mikeber

19-Oct-2009, 18:40

I did the opposite way - from DSLR to 4X5.
Since before using DSLR, I was shooting mainly 35mm, I looked for new experiences and the 4x5 was the answer.
The way I see it - I don't need many photographs. I took a lot and now I am interested in a certain look and feel. However, when I work commercially, time is paramount and I'll do anything it takes to finish the project on time. Therefore am using DLSRs for the majority of assignments.
I do not carry a small point and shoot at all times, and don't feel I need to be always on alert. However, when I shoot for pleasure, the 4x5 fills the need. Not so much for sharpness, but the camera movements make the pics look differently.
My advice - you don't need to sell your LF equipment - just buy a DSLR and use it for a few months. But aside from landscapes, maybe with the DSLR, you can switch your focus and take more candid pics or do some photojournalism. A Nikon D700 can be an eye opener allowing you to work at very low light levels, but for max resolution, you'll need the top of the line from Nikon or perhaps a Canon 5D Mark2.

Allen in Montreal

19-Oct-2009, 18:42

OK, I'll bite. :)

I shoot every day, all day long, with a DigitallyShitLoadedReflex,
I can honestly say, you really don't want to dump your gear for the 49 cents you will get for it, to turn around and spend 4900 on stuff that will be outdated faster than a half filled bottle of D-76!

Do you really want to give up taking a glass of wine into the darkroom, turning on the stereo and making a beautiful print for burning your eyeballs out in front of an LCD?

Forgo that lovely air dried glossy look of Fiber Based paper for a pile of shredded recycling because the ICC thingies did not do their job and you blew a box of paper and crate of ink that is worth more than gold?

Seriously, don't dump your gear, buy a digi if you wish, but don't dump LF, you will regret it. It is like giving up wine, cheese and baguette for water, Nutella, Corn Flakes!

But if you must go Digi,

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/promotions/h4d-launch.aspx

I have been testing a canon 7d this week, don't buy one yet! The focus gets mushy.
The 5d Mark ll is probably the best camera for the money.
But your fingers never smell like Fixer after a session with the 5d. :mad:

Not sure if it is my mood, but suddenly today I started thinking about giving up the 4x5 and buying a DSLR.

So - if you we're to switch to DSLR, what camera would you buy and why?

I shoot mainly landscapes, flora, and am interested in large wall prints up to 16x20.

You can talk me off the ledge if you like!

Ed Richards

19-Oct-2009, 19:00

I shoot 4x5 and a D700 Nikon FF digital. I had hoped that the digital, perhaps with a TS lens, would substitute for the 4x5 in many situations, but I find I still shoot 4x5 for stuff that stands still and has manageable light ranges. But when things move, or when the dynamic range is too wide, I shoot digital. I can do HDR that does not look like science fiction, and handle 20+ stops of DR. By things that move, I mean people - street shooting, festivals, music performances.

Since I do not usually make big prints, I could probably do fine with the D700 for a lot of my work, but I still like the look of the 4x5 film images better. I also use movements a lot, and TS lenses are not that great. But I only shoot black and white in 4x5. If I were a color photographer, I would shoot digital and never look back. Digital is great for color.

Frank makes the important case - the best camera is the one you use. If you are not shooting very many sheets of film, you would clearly be better off with digital - even if you do not shoot it either, it is easier to carry so you enjoy the trip more. I am trying to shoot 1000 sheets a year, and usually do hit at least 500. I also shoot probably 10K digital images in a year, and keep a 1000 or so. I quit shooting LF about 20 years ago because I found was not taking any pictures, and only got back to it about 5 years ago. If I find I am not taking pictures again, I will just do digital. But do not sell your gear until you are sure you want to make the change permanent.

Darin Boville

19-Oct-2009, 19:23

I just finished one of the Aperture books that I will be using to share my work--it offers a few images from several projects I have made over the past ten years.

Here's a list of the cameras I used for each project:

Stills from Digital Camcorder

4x5 Field

Desktop scanner

4x5 monorail

P&S digital

DSLR

DSLR

4x5 monorail

4x5 monorail

So i would definitely not use just one camera :)

--Darin

rphenning

19-Oct-2009, 19:30

I had the full canon setup. 2 1D bodies, L lenses, flash, etc. bought it all and barely used it for 6 months. Sold it all and bought a 4x5 and LOVE it.

To address your question though if I had to go back I would go with the 5d Mark II or original 5d and then pig out on the lenses, I am thinking 35 1.4, 85 1.2, and 135 2... HD video is rad so I would probably get an external mic and some goodies for that.

rphenning

19-Oct-2009, 19:33

oh yeah and all the guys who spent 8 large on the last 1ds are about to easily have their "investment" halved by the new 1d, I think. So yeah, digital is a joke. Film is great.

JOneZero

19-Oct-2009, 21:26

There's no reason why the two can't compliment each other. Me, I work with a D200 and a 4x5. I frequently use the D200 to scout locations and do test shots... I tend to use the digital like Polaroid, except sometimes the test shots do turn out to be usable on their own. The D200 can get into places where the 4x5 just can't go.

Processing-wise, my house isn't really set up for a full blast darkroom and 4x5 enlarger. So I develop the film myself, and then scan on an Epson v700. These scans are mainly for indexing and filing, but occasionally one pops up that I can work with on the Epson. Mostly though, on the rare occasion that I get one I'm *very* fond of and want to print, I mail it out for drum scanning. I work on that (huge) file, and then send it back for printing.

Anyway, for me the D200 has been a good workhorse camera for a few years now. I still use my trusty F100, too, also with the hybrid film/digital approach above. I'd like to get a D700 for low-light stuff but jeepers who can justify the price tag of one of those babies. Plus next year it's obsolete. If you do get a DSLR, I recommend getting one with the full 35mm sensor size.

My $0.02 NZD.

douglas antonio

19-Oct-2009, 22:54

i too shoot both. 4x5 for clients and personal work and digital for clients. since i knew they don't need very large formats, a 10.2mp canon was okay and i did not buy it – they had to ;-)). i would recommend you to try and rent one or two models plus a decent lens from a place like calumet and try it out. i have had different nikon and canon cameras in hand for shootings and while they came up with excellent results they were very different in handling – puzzling at least for me. see which one suits you from results, handling and price and then buy the one that fits best. someone mentioned it already: the day a model is released, it's outdated. don't worry about that. just go for the best pictures you can achieve.

chino79

20-Oct-2009, 00:01

I am going the other way. I have started on digital and I now am pursuing Large format. None of my customers generally require large prints, so for me digital is better for work. Film is great for my own use.
I personally recommend a Canon 5D II, 21 megapixel is good for prints up to 27 inches without interpolating, on the longest side at 200 dpi (from memory), Sony has 24 mpix, Nikon also has D700 at 21 mpix I think.

Well for me the canon wins hands down. All are great cameras but Canon has a beautiful range of Tilt and shift lenses 17mm, 24mm, 45mm and 90mm, now they are expensive and don't have the some range of movements as a LF camera but for digital, they are almost the only option. If you don't care about tilt and shift lenses then pick whatever brand you desire they all have great models.

Duane Polcou

20-Oct-2009, 00:30

When shooting landscapes, I like to bring both. Scouting a position and setting up a view camera on a tripod and examining the ground glass and just taking my time to enjoy the process is as much a reward for me as is producing and selling a fine print.
But the DSLR is great for telephoto and bracketing exposures in situations of insane contrast to combine later in post.

That having been said, the Sony alpha 900 is the least expensive full frame 24mp sensor camera yet. Sooooo nice.

dh003i

20-Oct-2009, 00:45

I use an Olympus E-3; it is a great camera. It is unfortunately looked down on by some, but I really don't care about that. It is an excellent complement to a 4x5. Having the 4/3rds format sensor, it will have more reach and less weight/bulk than Canon or Nikon APS-C DSLRs with lenses with equivalent angles of view. The Olympus E3 has an articulating LCD and is very rugged and weather-resistant, as are the pro-lenses.

Lenses for the Four-Thirds system are exceptionally sharp; but of course they need to be due to the smaller sensor. I have the Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54/2.8-3.5, 50/2, and 70-300/4.5-5.6 lenses; as well as a Minolta Rokkor-MC 58/1.2 (which I'm now selling on eBay), and a Minolta Rokkor-MD 50/1.4.

Sine buying a 4x5, when I have both cameras with me, I'll generally leave the 4x5 on a tripod and hand-hold the Olympus E-3 (it's too much work unmounting and re-mounting he 4x5, even with a QR plate). If I find a shot I really like with my E-3, I'll take an equivalent with my 4x5. I have 90, 135, 150, 203, and 305 focal lengths for 4x5; although right now, I usually leave the Xenotar 135/3.5 (for portraiture) behind, and also leave the Symmar 150/5.6 convertible behind. I find myself using the Nikkor 90/4.5 and G-Claron 305/9 the most, although the Kodak Ektar 203/7.7 is also a fine very sharp lens, which certainly has its place for when I want a more "normal" focal length.

I've found that having a 4x5 has "slowed" me down on my Olympus E-3 as well; I spend more time looking through the viewfinder to find excellent shots before taking them. This saves time deleting sub-par shots later.

Shots I definitely will take with my 4x5 are ones where there is a lot of depth, but it can be captured by movements; or where there isn't so-much depth necessary. I am more hesitant photograph shots on the 4x5 where there is much depth, and the foreground is close and very 3D (not planar in any way), as then I'll need to stop down to f/64 (equivalent to more if I'm in he macro-range), which erodes much of the advantage of 4x5 over my Olympus E-3. Although the tonality and lack of grain is still there.

Thus, if you decide to keep you 4x5 and get a complementary system, I recommend the Olympus E-3. It is at the opposite end of the spectrum, and will fetch you advantages in being able to obtain extreme depth in your shots, albeit with some diffraction at f/22 (f/22 on 4/3rds is equivalent to f/45 on 35mm). The 4/3rds system also provides tremendous reach, with a 70-300mm lens being equivalent for AOV to a 140-600mm for 35mm. You can also use it as a light-meter for your 4x5 (that's what I do).

If you decide to sell your 4x5, then of course the benefit of the E-3 being complimentary to the 4x5 isn't there; but it is still a great camera. You can also go with an APS-C camera from Nikon, Canon, Sony, or Pentax. Or a "full-frame" 35mm sensor-format camera from Nikon, Canon, or Sony (there are of course much more expensive than smaller sensor cameras). Both the kind of photography you want to do and your budget determine your preference here.

timparkin

20-Oct-2009, 05:38

.... But I only shoot black and white in 4x5. If I were a color photographer, I would shoot digital and never look back. Digital is great for color.
...

I found this to be the opposite. Colour on a digital is bloody awful. Mushy greens and yellows, the bayer array screwing up any fine detail (think 5Mp camera instead of 20Mp if you want pixel perfect colour), screwy colour because of infra-red.

I use a 5Dmk2 and a 4x5 system and am happy to use the 5D as a 'finder', snapshot camera, occasional backup in case 4x5 is unfeasible (and for my needs a video camera).

I take about 100 shots per year on my large format camera at the moment and maybe 500 shots per year on my 5Dmk2 of which maybe 200 are real shots

redrockcoulee

20-Oct-2009, 06:37

I am another D200 shooter who mainly shoots film (more MF than LF or 35mm). However one of the more affordable way to have both is go with a Pentax. The reason I am suggesting Pentax is no other brand has the variety and some say quality, of their prime lenses.It is not full frame which is the disadvantage but I think the IQ and lenses, especially their limited lenses, more than makes up for it.

As I said above I shoot mostly film, and more so now than even a year ago, and hardly use the D200 but then it is only a loaner as the owner upgraded, and my wife shoots mostly digital with her Pentax K10D but she also uses the Hasselblad and the two large format cameras and we are building some cannister pinhole cameras as well. There are few reasons that it has to be an either or situation as many have already pointed out. I think it is more in the printing that the choice is harder as in having to make a decision on equipment. We cannot print larger than letter size paper digitally at the present time but there is no limit on the size of film that we could print all we need is larger trays. Those who print digitally it is easier to have the two systems. The downside of having more than one system there are always times that you wished you had the other one(s) with you but the upside of that is that you could do so and even better you have choices.

Ken Lee

20-Oct-2009, 06:47

Do mirror-based cameras make sense any more ?

Money aside, if I were going digital, I might chuck the whole idea of a DSLR - and get a Leica M9 (http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9.htm).

20-Oct-2009, 07:01

Sitting on my counter at home is :
4x5 speed graphic
Nikon f4s loaded with TMY
Nikon d300
Nikon d100 infrared only
Nikon d50
Flip ultraHD video cam

Each have their strengths. If I want some nice 5x7's of my wife holding the baby, the 35mm B&W film is perfect, especially with the quick autofocus. If I want to put some stuff online or have high shooting volume requirements or want color, the d300 or d50 is fine. If it's a puffy cloud day and I want a science fiction look, I take the IR camera. If it's something I might want big, or need some DR, or need a traditional timeless look, it's the graphic with B&W film. Nothing wrong with 4x5 color film, I just don't like color darkroom work.

Richard M. Coda

20-Oct-2009, 07:23

Don't do it!

One day, and we may read about it here, you will regret not having that big camera around.

I have a D300, Arca 4x5 Field, Arca 8x10 and hybrid Arca-Canham 11x14. Do you know what I use the D300 for? Some small product photography, but mainly for my wife's scrapbooking habit! It's an expensive snapshot camera.

David Luttmann

20-Oct-2009, 08:09

Borrow or rent a 5D2, and make some comparison shots with your 4x5 rig. Make some prints at 16x20 and check what differences you see, and if any, see if they matter to you.

I use both because I enjoy the feel of 4x5 gear and the style of shooting it forces one to take. That said, with good processing, the difference betweent he latest DSLRs and 4x5 at 16x20 may be small enough that you no longer care. It's not just about resolution, but dynamic range, tonality, and the character of the film used.

Ron Marshall

20-Oct-2009, 08:15

Ken Lee

20-Oct-2009, 08:21

You're right !!!

What was I thinking ?

OK - The mirror is back... whatever !

photographs42

20-Oct-2009, 08:34

Not a lot has been said about this, but for me it is more about the experience. For my job as an Architectural Photographer, I just upgraded from a D200 to a D700. Big improvement! But I’m still peeking through a little hole to compose and, while it suits the purpose of my current work, it isn’t very satisfying.

Taking the 5x7 out for a day or a weekend is such a totally different experience for me that there is really no comparison. Working with a potential image is, for me, the joy of large format. Thirty years ago I switched from 35mm to 4x5 and that first experience working with the large camera, before I ever saw a LF negative, sold me. I get that same thrill today and I don’t even have to expose any film. Sometimes I get everything set up and decide it’s not good enough and I walk away……..But I still enjoy the experience.

Go digital if you want but think about what you miss before selling your LF.
Jerome

Brian Ellis

20-Oct-2009, 08:37

oh yeah and all the guys who spent 8 large on the last 1ds are about to easily have their "investment" halved by the new 1d, I think. So yeah, digital is a joke. Film is great.

Anyone who buys any camera equipment as an "investment" is making a big mistake. But for sheer difference between original purchase price and current resale value, you can't beat a 35mm camera. I was at a little swap meet recently. A guy was selling a Nikon N90S with battery pack for $50. $50 for a camera and pack that I paid over $1000 for a little over 12 years ago. And of course there were no takers even at $50.

But to answer the OPs question, to get started with serious digital photography I'd look for a good used Canon 5D assuming that you don't have unlimited funds. The 5D used sells for about $1,200 on ebay. Then buy the best used lenses for it that you can afford. You'll be able to make larger prints of excellent quality with a new 5D Mark II that others have suggested and certainly that camera would be a great start too. But they sell for about $2700 and since this is something new for you it seems wise to keep the original cost down until you know you like working with a digital camera and the 5D is an excellent camera for about $1,200.

If you buy used you can sell the lenses any time in the foreseeable future for what you paid for them. The 5D should hold its current price until Canon comes out with a successor to the 5D Mark II, which is probably a couple years away. So if you buy used you can probably recoup your entire cost if you decide within the next couple years that digital isn't for you.

Ron Marshall

20-Oct-2009, 08:39

You're right !!!

What was I thinking ?

OK - The mirror is back... whatever !

I would be very satisfied with either one!

tgtaylor

20-Oct-2009, 09:46

There is no need to toss the LF when it can go digital too. The BetterLight scanning backs for existing 4x5's have come waaay down in price (less than $20K for a 384 megapixel back!), weight (20 ozs.), and capture time.

Better than a DSLR are cameras like the Toyo VX23D which can be fitted with a variety of medium format digital backs such as the Leaf for less bucks than a high end DSLR.

The benefit of sticking with LF is when the technology changes, you just change the back and not the whole camera. Waaay cheaper that way! Plus, you can still shoot a sheet for that special occasion.

Thomas

venchka

20-Oct-2009, 09:53

A friend of mine owns Nikon digital cameras, Nikon Tilt-Shift and Zeiss lenses and a Canon 5000 printer. He does some stitching. I have held his large prints (24"-25" long) in my hands, both color & B&W. They are very very good.

My friend is Jeff Kohn. He can be reached here.....

http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com/

Good luck.

dh003i

20-Oct-2009, 10:18

Toyon

20-Oct-2009, 10:20

What venchka said is something to consider. If you are going to ditch your 4x5, you will probably want a camera which offers tilt-shit lenses.

Geez! are they that bad?

dh003i

20-Oct-2009, 10:32

Geez! are they that bad?

ROTFLOL! Whoops, fixed that.

But I have heard that the Arsat tilt-shift lenses aren't good.

pandachromatic

20-Oct-2009, 11:31

Why would you want to do that? The only thing view cameras and DSLRs have in common is that they produce images. In the rest, they're completely different from each other.

Wallace_Billingham

20-Oct-2009, 11:45

just get a $25 Holga camera and a few rolls of Tri-X you will have more resolution than any current DSLR on the 6x6 negative

eddie

20-Oct-2009, 11:47

shoot both.

LF prices are way down so you will not get much for your stuff. might as well just keep it. i will be that what ever your DSLR costs you now. in 3-4 years the DSLR will get you trhe same amount ass your LF stuff will get you then too!

i do not shoot digital (well for posting FS stuff) cause i like to shoot LF and film....no other reason. gives me everything i want.

so what did you buy?

oh! what would i buy. D3 or D700....only cause i have nikon glass already.....

Brian Ellis

20-Oct-2009, 12:39

Do mirror-based cameras make sense any more ?

Money aside, if I were going digital, I might chuck the whole idea of a DSLR - and get a Leica M9 (http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9.htm).

Yes, it's amazing what you can do when you put money aside. But why stop there? If money was no object I'd get a medium format camera with a Leaf or Phase I back for about $40,000. Unfortunately money isn't aside for most of us.

Diane Maher

20-Oct-2009, 12:53

I shoot a Nikon D700 DSLR along with various LF formats. I usually use the DSLR for scouting an area to see if I want to take my LF gear there at a later date.

cjbroadbent

20-Oct-2009, 14:47

I've been using a digital Hasselblad for two years but, from one job to the next, I must confess that I have difficulty in remembering how to set things up; for instance using the self timer to get the mirror up with a 3 second delay to settle the vibrations - bracketing or even which knob to get out of auto-focus. There are 8 buttons an 27 menu pages.
LF is a holiday after a DSLR. LF is on manual mode, no menus - just three God-given things to remember: time, f-stop and focus.
So I'm ditching the Hasselblad DSLR for a DRF (Leica M8, soon M9). With a RF you can compose with your face and not through an eyeglass - you get real focus - real f stops. real time. If you want to shoot better than 4x5, stitch. No need for a DSLR for that and you can stitch vast interiors with a normal lens.
I would suggest that a digital rangefinder is closer to the heart of an LFP.

domaz

20-Oct-2009, 15:07

. No need for a DSLR for that and you can stitch vast interiors with a normal lens.
I would suggest that a digital rangefinder is closer to the heart of an LFP.

I like Large Format and I'm not a huge fan on Rangefinders. I appreciate them but I get annoyed quickly with when I want to take a close-up photo or preview my depth-of-field. Both of these things are easy with a LF or SLR, impossible with RF.

rdenney

20-Oct-2009, 15:28

What venchka said is something to consider. If you are going to ditch your 4x5, you will probably want a camera which offers tilt-shift lenses.

Nikon has a PC-E Nikkor 24mm ED with tilt, shift, and rotation for $2000 - $2200 from reputable sellers (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=Nikon+PC-E+Nikkor+24mm&oe=utf-8&hl=en&cid=14063398635732729404&sa=button#scoring=tp). This is close to a 90mm lens on 4x5 in terms of AOV.

The new Canon 24mm tilt-shift lens is about the same price. If it's a high-end Nikon body, it will allow metering with a range of other tilt-shift options, too. All Canons will be able to do that as well. For example, I have a 45mm Harblei shift lens (based on an old Soviet wide-angle design for medium format), and I adapt it to my 5D using a tilting adapter. That gives me tilt-shift capability with independent rotation of the tilting and shifting axes. Even better (optically) is the Arsat 55mm PCS lens, which provides shift, on that tilting adapter. Canon also offers 45mm and 90mm tilt-shift lenses. But, most valuable of all for one trying to do image management on a digital camera, is the new Canon 17mm tilt-shift lens, especially if using a camera with a smaller sensor.

All those are severe compromises, of course. But they provide a semblance of view camera functionality not otherwise possible with a small camera.

Rick "happy to provide the trash can for anyone 'chucking' their LF gear" Denney

Harley Goldman

20-Oct-2009, 15:31

I have both. I have a Canon 5DII and some pretty good glass. I take the Canon on airplane trips and when the light or conditions are iffy. For me, shooting digital has no soul. The results are damn good, but I don't enjoy the process of shooting digital the same way I do LF. LF has a certain zen to it than I don't get from the Canon. The digital images are far easier to process, no scanning, far less dust cleanup, etc. and it is far more efficient, allowing far, far more compositions in the field. Even with those pluses, on most trips, my digital outfit stays in the truck while I am out with my 4x5 outfit.

Everyone is different, so you need to go with what works for you.

Greg Blank

20-Oct-2009, 15:37

These are really good points, I can remember alot of the experiences I have had with the LF cameras. Many amusing and memorable experiences, from nearly breaking my leg in a somewhat deep stream here in Maryland to the time I almost got bitten by a rather large rattkesnake in New Mexico....I wouldn't change any of it. :)

Not a lot has been said about this, but for me it is more about the experience. For my job as an Architectural Photographer, I just upgraded from a D200 to a D700. Big improvement! But I’m still peeking through a little hole to compose and, while it suits the purpose of my current work, it isn’t very satisfying.

Taking the 5x7 out for a day or a weekend is such a totally different experience for me that there is really no comparison. Working with a potential image is, for me, the joy of large format. Thirty years ago I switched from 35mm to 4x5 and that first experience working with the large camera, before I ever saw a LF negative, sold me. I get that same thrill today and I don’t even have to expose any film. Sometimes I get everything set up and decide it’s not good enough and I walk away……..But I still enjoy the experience.

Go digital if you want but think about what you miss before selling your LF.
Jerome

Drew Wiley

20-Oct-2009, 15:46

What is a DLSR? Is that one of those little inedible things they used to pack in a
box of CrackerJacks?

Toyon

20-Oct-2009, 16:57

Wow, 4 pages of comments, yet the OP hasn't responded yet....probably went out already and bought a dslr. The best approach is to find out for yourself like everyone else. The key word is supplement, not replace.

Obviously a Troll.

Louis Pacilla

21-Oct-2009, 06:44

It is a nice day .... many Lemmings have gone before you. I never was much of a hand holder.

Hi
I second Steves view . although I'm not sure about the rodent(lemmings) thing

Peace
Louis P.

John Kasaian

21-Oct-2009, 07:55

Awwww! Whatcha gonna do with all that spare time you'll have---learn a foriegn language? :rolleyes:

Eric Brody

21-Oct-2009, 08:15

You need to do what makes you happy in photography. The camera is only a tool to that end. We probably cannot, and indeed should not, significantly influence your choices. If you earn your living with your camera, you probably know what you want to do. Any camera is a compromise. None will do everything. Cost, bulk, speed, and cost and cost, usually influence us most. We can each tell our own story and why it works, or not, for us. I have used a 4x5 for over 20 years, along with MF for "convenience," when the larger camera was just too bulky, heavy, or the weather was iffy. About two years ago I gave up printing in the darkroom and am extremely happy with my scanned 4x5 and MF negatives.

I got a high quality DSLR almost a year ago and am quite happy with it. It operates considerably faster, can be used fairly easily even in pouring rain with a simple inexpensive cover, and produces wonderful images that have been well received even by silver gelatin experts. I enjoy the process of using the 4x5, I also enjoy working with the digital files on the computer.

I do not know where the future will take me. I recently drooled over some Phase One MF backs at Bear Images in Palo Alto, but they are a bit expensive :). For now, I use the 4x5 when I can, the DSLR when I choose and am having a ball. I am hanging some photos this weekend as part of a group show and, for what it's worth, all are color and all are shot with the DSLR. Go figure.

Eric

john biskupski

21-Oct-2009, 10:38

After years of using just 35mm, I had just about given up taking photos, so disapointed I was at colour lab results for small enlargements. I bought a Canon 5D and some L glass two years ago to get away from that, and have been delighted with the results and the system versatility. Along with hand-holdability in available light, great choice of lenses, ease of processing workflow, and pretty nice (smallish) inkjet prints, I'm a very happy owner of a dslr. It's great for reportage, action, long lenses, low light, all those times when old film cameras didn't quite cut it.

In choice of digital, my advice for best results would be to go with a full-frame dslr (eg 5DII) or the new Leica M9 (especially for wide-angles, although pricey). Be aware that many pros were disappointed with Canon's wide angle lenses, although, for an amateur the 16-35L is fine. I haven't tried mounting wide angle CZ or Leica lenses on the 5D, I think the 5DII may have resolved the mirror size compatability issue with the lens mount adaptors.

If money were no object, or if you were already heavily invested in Rollei 6008 or Hassleblad V lenses, MF digital backs are probably a route to superior quality results.

Having said all this, guess what I did. Taking photos with the 5D enthused me so much, that I have got back into photography in a big way, and have bought a Canham 5x7 to try my hand at LF for a more considered, totally manual, approach in certain photographic situations. As someone said before, a good antidote to all-digital.

Robert Hughes

21-Oct-2009, 10:59

... and easy access to digital and LF has rekindled my interest in 35mm! Funny, how each format makes one appreciate the others that much more.

Brian Ellis

21-Oct-2009, 11:11

What is a DLSR? Is that one of those little inedible things they used to pack in a
box of CrackerJacks?

No, a DSLR is the thing that put Minolta, Bronica, and Agfa among many others out of business.

It's the reason why darkrooms are largely obsolete and why darkroom equipment sells for 5 cents on the dollar if it can be sold at all. It's why local labs that process film can be hard to find and why so many of them have gone out of business or switched to digital.

It's why Kodak no longer makes b&w paper or slide carousels. It's also why Kodak has laid off tens of thousands of workers and incurred billions of dollars of losses in recent years. It's why Nikon and Canon are essentially out of the film camera business. It's why no major corporation is devoting research and development money to anything related to film.

If your local camera stores have gone out of business a DSLR is one of the major reasons why. And if you still have a local camera store a DSLR is why it may no longer carry LF film. It's why my old local camera store junked all the refrigerating equipment in which it used to store film and stopped carrying black and white film. It's a major reason why camera store chains such as Ritz are no longer in business.

Just to mention a few things that a DSLR is.

Marko

21-Oct-2009, 11:22

Just to mention a few things that a DSLR is.

But, some will say, it still can't compete with the likes of Kodachrome and Polaroid...

Me, I don't think it will ever be able to compete.

;)

paulr

21-Oct-2009, 11:24

...Just to mention a few things that a DSLR is.

It would have to be pretty amazing to single-handedly turn an industry upside down like that ...

I'm impressed by the results people get from DSLRs.

Most of my reasons for not switching are personal preferences; I'm sure some of these will change.

1) price. Good ones are still way out of my range
2) complexity. My cameras have always been like wind-up clocks. DSLRs are like computers. I don't want to think about all that stuff while I'm shooting.
3) i like composing on a ground glass. Or something similar. Not as happy with a viewfinder
4) movements. maybe current tilt/shift lensese are good enough, not sure.

My dream camera would be simple, would dispense with a reflex mirror, would have a great big digital sensor, and would let you use a digital screen on the back like a ground glass. And of course, it would cost a few hundred bucks and give back rubs ...

jdavis

21-Oct-2009, 11:29

Robert Hughes

21-Oct-2009, 12:07

Marko

21-Oct-2009, 12:36

One additional point. If you do get a digital camera to replace your film-based one, be sure to print out the photos you like, because the storage media for any digital information is temporary.

Don't believe me? How many 150 year old flash cards are working nowadays? :p

At least as many as there are 150 year-old color photographs... ;)

Flash cards are temporary storage by definition, but chances are better than even that an average flash card will outlive an average color print made at the same time.

Robert Hughes

21-Oct-2009, 12:53

...chances are better than even that an average flash card will outlive an average color print made at the same time.

Really? Do you have some facts to back that up? My understanding of digital storage media is that it degrades rapidly over time, with modern technologies being among the worst offenders. How many floppy disks are still playable? How many hard disks, optical disks, digital video tapes? Even if the media are still readable, what about the readers? Formats become obsolete, then the players disappear. Wheras human-readable media such as film are usable as long as the base materials they're placed on.

Archivists such as the Louis Wolfson Center at Miami Dade College are concerned that news images of the 1990's are disappearing with the physical degradation of the original videotapes, whereas film-based news from the 1960's is still plentiful and readable. A similar situation occurred to book archivists with the advent of sulfite paper - existing 17th Century books are in generally better shape than those of the 19th Century; the latter are slowly burning up and turning to dust.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87_7009__01476_.jpg

Drew Wiley

21-Oct-2009, 13:08

Brian, 'scuse me' - I accidentally mistook this for the "Large Format" forum. Of course,
in your opinion it's all over with anyway. But, uh, let's hang a print from the most
expensive DLSR right next to one from a garden-variety 4x5 with a 50-year old lens
and see how things stack up. Oh, but I cheat and use an 8x10 too. Enlargers obsolete?
Dream on. I'm operating with four of them and am contemplating a fifth. No sheet film in the camera stores? Doesn't sound like anything in this part of the world. Plenty of sheet film for sale in this town. Maybe not every exact variety I personally prefer, but certainly plenty of 4x5, plus basic 8x10 black-and-white - but that's why I have a
freezer of my own. And film isn't why Kodak is laying off people.

rdenney

21-Oct-2009, 14:02

How many floppy disks are still playable? How many hard disks, optical disks, digital video tapes? Even if the media are still readable, what about the readers? Formats become obsolete, then the players disappear. Wheras human-readable media such as film are usable as long as the base materials they're placed on.

Archivists such as the Louis Wolfson Center at Miami Dade College are concerned that news images of the 1990's are disappearing with the physical degradation of the original videotapes, whereas film-based news from the 1960's is still plentiful and readable. A similar situation occurred to book archivists with the advent of sulfite paper - existing 17th Century books are in generally better shape than those of the 19th Century; the latter are slowly burning up and turning to dust.

You bring up an important point: Archiving digital images is much less about the technology of the storage medium and much more about the active care required, and the plan for doing so. File formats change, disk formats change, the software to drive them becomes obsolete and often disappears by accident when other hardware breaks and is replaced (requiring new software). Moving data from old media to new media requires active involvement. The question is: Do we think the stuff we are spending the effort to save is worth that trouble? That requires a historical perspective, and by the time that perspective emerges, it's often too late.

But all of it, pictures and all, will end up as dust eventually. With few exceptions (such as the contents of Egyptian tombs) about the only art remaining from 2000 years ago and more was carved from or into rock. We aren't building pyramids for even our best stuff.

I just heard a report from some egghead that we are saving too much, and that we have changed out default condition from forgetting stuff to remembering stuff. He thinks we should be actively discarding stuff. And so it goes...

Rick "suspecting his heirs will throw those negatives and transparencies in the nearest trash can" Denney

Marko

21-Oct-2009, 14:08

At least as many as there are 150 year-old color photographs... ;)

Flash cards are temporary storage by definition, but chances are better than even that an average flash card will outlive an average color print made at the same time.

Really? Do you have some facts to back that up? My understanding of digital storage media is that it degrades rapidly over time, with modern technologies being among the worst offenders. How many floppy disks are still playable? How many hard disks, optical disks, digital video tapes? Even if the media are still readable, what about the readers? Formats become obsolete, then the players disappear. Wheras human-readable media such as film are usable as long as the base materials they're placed on.

Do I have the facts to back that up? You bet. You show me a 150-year old color print and I'll show you a 150-year old CF card. Then we can put them both on the shelf next to each other and come back every 50 years or so and compare how they hold up.

;)

I think your level of understanding the "digital storage media" is leading you to confuse magnetic, optical and solid-state (non-volatile flash memory) types of storage.

Flash cards are solid-state type of medium. Unlike floppy or hard disks or tapes, they have no moving, mechanical or magnetic parts that would be susceptible to power outages, mechanical or magnetic failures. Unlike film or optical media, they also have no optical or chemical components prone to oxidation, corrosion or photochemical reaction.

But understanding of digital data storage goes far deeper than that. It is a whole new medium with entirely different rules and requirements. The key to data permanency is mobility and replication, not archivability.

I have digital images and documents I created some 20 years ago that I can read with no problem and no degradation. I also have color prints made at the same time that show all the signs of environment-induced degradation, and uneven one at that.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87_7009__01476_.jpg

Bottom line is that Prokhudin-Gorsky was a genius, but what you are showing is NOT a print, it is a digital reconstruction of one of his glass plate negatives.

Black & White glass plate negatives at that. There is a world of difference between black and white and anything color when it comes to permanence, especially prints.

rdenney

21-Oct-2009, 14:22

1) price. Good ones are still way out of my range
2) complexity. My cameras have always been like wind-up clocks. DSLRs are like computers. I don't want to think about all that stuff while I'm shooting.
3) i like composing on a ground glass. Or something similar. Not as happy with a viewfinder
4) movements. maybe current tilt/shift lensese are good enough, not sure.

My dream camera would be simple, would dispense with a reflex mirror, would have a great big digital sensor, and would let you use a digital screen on the back like a ground glass. And of course, it would cost a few hundred bucks and give back rubs ...

I'd be happy with a 4x5 non-scanning digital back with about 100 megapixels for under $1000. I'm easy to please: I don't need the back rubs.

Item 1 is headed your direction.

Item 2 has two sides. The software power of DSLRs both presents complexity and provides opportunities for hiding it. I doubt any all-mechanical camera in history can make acceptable pictures in the wide range of circumstances that can be handled by any modern DSLR in automatic modes. Much of the complexity is dealing with how it does automation. When I put my 5D on M, I turn one knob to change the shutter speed, and another knob to change aperture, until the pointer on a scale lines up with an indicator. Just like in the old days.

I'm right there with you on Item 3, but the live view capability of the latest DSLRs, at least when made more directly controllable, will provide that. It already allows micro-focusing on such cameras as the 5DII (the one feature I wish my 5D had).

Item 4 is a bit of a mixed bag. Given how short the lenses are for a given field of view, the amount of tilt required is pretty limited. Table-top work probably requires the most extreme tilt capability. A 4x5 camera with a 90mm lens focused at 6" from the film, focused on a surface that intersects the film plane at right angles 12 inches under the center of the image, will need a tilt angle of about 26 degrees. A 24x36 camera with a 24mm lens making the same picture would only need just under 5 degrees of tilt. My 24mm tilt-shift lens from Canon (the older version) provides up to 6 degrees of tilt--it has always been abundant. Shift is another matter--the lenses are basically limited to 12mm of shift before the mirror box will cast a shadow on the sensor.

I have been itching to put one of the new 17mm TSE lenses in my hands, but that will have to wait for my next trip to New York, whenever that is.

Of course, all tilt-shift lenses for small cameras are a compromise in some way or another. They all require fairly extreme retrofocus designs which complicates the movements. In return for that, though, they tend to provide more even illumination than the centered designs used in large format. Much is possible now that was not possible even a few years ago.

Rick "noting that the prices for high-end tilt-shift lenses make the digital body seem cheap" Denney

Robert Hughes

21-Oct-2009, 14:26

The key to data permanency is mobility and replication, not archivability.
True - but the trick with data permanency is replicating it before it degrades. How many of us have lost data to computer disk drive crashes? I'd guess it hovers around 100%. But do we all backup? Some do, some don't.

I have digital images and documents I created some 20 years ago that I can read with no problem and no degradation. I also have color prints made at the same time that show all the signs of environment-induced degradation, and uneven one at that.... There is a world of difference between black and white and anything color when it comes to permanence, especially prints.
Of course color prints fade. But you can see degradation before it becomes unrecoverable. A flash drive or hard disk just doesn't work one day, and it's all gone.

...what you are showing is NOT a print, it is a digital reconstruction of one of his glass plate negatives.
The reconstruction technique is irrelevant. I could do it with three magic lanterns.

Our conversation started tongue-in-cheek, and changed into a serious discussion of media archiving strategies. As the Library of Congress says, back up early to multiple formats to ensure recoverability in the future.

pocketfulladoubles

21-Oct-2009, 14:57

What about the simple notion that DSLR's are just kind of boring? The quality may be there, but the soul is certainly not.

Kirk Gittings

21-Oct-2009, 15:04

What about the simple notion that DSLR's are just kind of boring? The quality may be there, but the soul is certainly not.

I don't think any kind of photography is inherently boring, unless there is something lacking in my attitude.

sanking

21-Oct-2009, 15:05

Do I have the facts to back that up? You bet. You show me a 150-year old color print and I'll show you a 150-year old CF card. Then we can put them both on the shelf next to each other and come back every 50 years or so and compare how they hold up.

Marko,

The reason there are no 150 year old color prints is because no one was making color prints at that time. The only color you will find is hand painted color. The earliest *real* color print was not made until about two decades later, by Louis Ducos du Hauron, and that print still exists. Color printing on paper did not become common until after the introduction of panchromatic plates in the early 1890s. And there are many, many color carbon prints from that period that are basically in excellent condition since they were made with pigments. Also, from the same period various forms of color screen plates (Finlay, Dufay, Jolicolor, Thames Colour Screens, etc.) as well as Autochormes were made in large number and can often be found in the various antiquities markets.

Sandy King

paulr

21-Oct-2009, 15:19

The digital vs. analog archiving issue gets visited a lot. Personally I think it's a huge win for digital. Why?

First, you have the option of making prints, and doing so on very stable media.
Second, when archiving the data, you have options, including many emerging ones, which do things that can't be done in the analog world ... like mulitple identical backups in multiple locations.

This isn't a fringe need for museum archivists; it puts photographers in the same boat as IT managers, datacenter managers and asset management organizations everywhere. Virtually all creative content is a bunch of bits these days, and over the last ten years people have been working out comprehensive plans for archiving.

Realistically, my prints are in much greater danger from all out destruction (fire, flood, roof leak, burglary, etc.) than my digital files are in danger of demagnetizing.

I'm fully confident that over my lifetime I'll be able to manage the digital files, keeping them current and safe. After I die? The work I care about will be printed. If any historical types happen to care about my unprinted images, then they can deal with them. But let's be real: most people's negatives go into the trash not long after the funeral.

paulr

21-Oct-2009, 15:25

Item 2 has two sides. The software power of DSLRs both presents complexity and provides opportunities for hiding it.

No doubt. I'm mostly revealing my grumpiness and lack of experience with new cameras with this point.

I'm right there with you on Item 3, but the live view capability of the latest DSLRs, at least when made more directly controllable, will provide that.

That's cool. I'd like to see it in action. How big are the screens?

Item 4 is a bit of a mixed bag.

I'd like to see how these lenses do in the kinds of urban places i take pictures. Maybe they'd be great.

I'd also like to see if there are any advantages to the digital medium format cameras if you're not making giant prints.

Honestly, what I'm dying for is a really cool digital point 'n shoot. I see ones I like ... just waiting for the prices to come lower.

rdenney

21-Oct-2009, 15:54

That's cool. I'd like to see it in action. How big are the screens?

With the 5DII, the screen is typical--between 2 and 3 inches on the diagonal. But you can zoom the screen image in to 100% sensor cluster-for-pixel, which is maybe a 10X enlargement. So, it's like looking at ground glass through a 10X loupe. You can pan it around, too.

You live in New York--hop on the subway (or whatever) and run over to B&H. Take a memory card with you or buy a cheapie while you are there. Look at a 5DII with one of the new TSE lenses and make a few pictures in the store. Than come home and look at them on your screen. One HUGE advantage to digital stuff is the ability to conduct meaningful (though not necessarily artistic) trials while standing at the sale counter.

I'd like to see how these lenses do in the kinds of urban places i take pictures. Maybe they'd be great.

I have had really good success hand-holding my 5D and using the 24mm tilt-shift lens. I'm actually amazed at how easy it is to manage the focus plane even while hand-holding. It has been far more usable than I ever imagined. I wrote an article (intended for small-format photographers and simplistic for any large-format photographer) that describes tilts and shifts and shows some examples. All the examples were photographed hand-held:

Rick's article on small-format lens movements (http://www.rickdenney.com/tilt_shift.htm)

I'd also like to see if there are any advantages to the digital medium format cameras if you're not making giant prints.

Honestly, what I'm dying for is a really cool digital point 'n shoot. I see ones I like ... just waiting for the prices to come lower.

Something like the Leica M9 but with a Bessa L price. Throw in compatibility with, say, Leica thread mount (which allows many other lenses to be adapted to it) and I'm right there with you. But I want that 24x36 sensor in such a camera, and that's what is not available.

I've also been curious about digital medium format, but so far they are still too expensive and the the sensors are not full coverage. And they are so complicated...

Rick "who'd love an affordable digital back that would fit a Kiev 88" Denney

Drew Wiley

21-Oct-2009, 15:55

Well I'll admit I should be open to modernization. I could get rid of a couple of those
pesky enlargers and be more efficient if I merely had a 20X24 camera for contact
printing. Not as portable as I'd like, but then, it does have 320 times as much capture surface as a full-frame DLSR, while my 8x10 has only 53 times as much. Hmm. Maybe someone will patent a digital darkcloth soon. Wonder what a 1-1/2 square-inch contact print looks like? Wonder if DaVinci had been just a little smarter and had invented digital capture way back then. Would people still stand in line for two hours for a viewing of the memory disc the Mona Lisa is captured on? Marko would.

rdenney

21-Oct-2009, 16:23

Would people still stand in line for two hours for a viewing of the memory disc the Mona Lisa is captured on? Marko would.

I wonder how many of those people waiting in line to see the Mona Lisa know anything at all about how to make an oil painting. Would they care if Leonardo had easy-to-use tools for making the image versus having to sleep on a bed of nails to make the image? Some would, but I suspect most wait in line because they want to see what all the fuss is about. And whether they are impressed depends on the image Leonardo made, not the tools he used to make it.

Kirk has it right. When I approach the digital camera the same way I approach the 4x5 camera, I have a similar experience. The only difference (aside from the technical) is that the 4x5 camera enforces the slow approach, and the digital camera encourages spray and pray. But whether I succumb to that temptation is entirely my choice. There is no soul in any camera--it is provided by the photographer.

Rick "who world-class tubas are really just hunks of brass into which a second-rate amateur makes fart sounds" Denney

paulr

21-Oct-2009, 16:26

The only difference (aside from the technical) is that the 4x5 camera enforces the slow approach, and the digital camera encourages spray and pray. But whether I succumb to that temptation is entirely my choice.

I always felt that using a big slow camera was a great exercise for someone accustomed to a small quick one ... and vice versa.

paulr

21-Oct-2009, 16:39

I wonder how many of those people waiting in line to see the Mona Lisa know anything at all about how to make an oil painting. Would they care if Leonardo had easy-to-use tools for making the image versus having to sleep on a bed of nails to make the image?

http://www.paulraphaelson.com/downloads/technology_art.jpg

Marko

21-Oct-2009, 17:29

Marko,

The reason there are no 150 year old color prints is because no one was making color prints at that time.

I know that Sandy.

I was simply replying to a non-sequitur statement in the same fashion.

;)

Marko

21-Oct-2009, 17:37

True - but the trick with data permanency is replicating it before it degrades. How many of us have lost data to computer disk drive crashes? I'd guess it hovers around 100%. But do we all backup? Some do, some don't.

There is no trick. Every medium has its own rules for proper handling. Not doing a backup - a multiple backup - is at the very bottom of the brightness scale, right there with leaving color negative films in direct sunshine, sans protection.

If you want to use computers but can't be bothered safeguarding your data, you shouldn't blame computers for that. It's a 100% software failure, as the saying goes.

The reconstruction technique is irrelevant. I could do it with three magic lanterns.

It isn't irrelevant at all - we were talking about color prints. The example you provided was essentially black and white negative(s) that were digitally reconstructed in the 21st century. If you don't understand the difference, there's no point discussing it at all.

John Kasaian

21-Oct-2009, 17:43

No, a DSLR is the thing that put Minolta, Bronica, and Agfa among many others out of business.

It's the reason why darkrooms are largely obsolete and why darkroom equipment sells for 5 cents on the dollar if it can be sold at all. It's why local labs that process film can be hard to find and why so many of them have gone out of business or switched to digital.

It's why Kodak no longer makes b&w paper or slide carousels. It's also why Kodak has laid off tens of thousands of workers and incurred billions of dollars of losses in recent years. It's why Nikon and Canon are essentially out of the film camera business. It's why no major corporation is devoting research and development money to anything related to film.

If your local camera stores have gone out of business a DSLR is one of the major reasons why. And if you still have a local camera store a DSLR is why it may no longer carry LF film. It's why my old local camera store junked all the refrigerating equipment in which it used to store film and stopped carrying black and white film. It's a major reason why camera store chains such as Ritz are no longer in business.

Just to mention a few things that a DSLR is.

Sooooo----tell us how you really feel?:D

domaz

21-Oct-2009, 17:45

I'm fully confident that over my lifetime I'll be able to manage the digital files, keeping them current and safe. After I die? The work I care about will be printed. If any historical types happen to care about my unprinted images, then they can deal with them. But let's be real: most people's negatives go into the trash not long after the funeral.

Unless you have a hard drive crash. I work in IT and know what it takes to keep data safe. Most users don't do that. You might, but 99% of regular users don't. Most don't even backup regularly and if they it could be onto questionably stable media like DVD-Rs.

Marko

21-Oct-2009, 17:57

Would people still stand in line for two hours for a viewing of the memory disc the Mona Lisa is captured on? Marko would.

I most certainly would. It was Leonardo that created Mona Lisa, not his brushes nor his paints. It would still be a Mona Lisa no matter what kind of technology he used for it.

Simple as that.

Drew Wiley

21-Oct-2009, 18:17

Thanks for your honesty, Marko. But I'm personally a photographer AND printmaker.
The image means nothing if it isn't translated into a print. And apparently a lot of
other people think so too. How come a really, really good state-of-the art reproduction of Brett Weston's "Holland Canal" retails for about $200 (a sizable sum
indeed for a photolithograph), yet an original photographic print by his own hand
of this same subject would auction for over $20,000. How come a reproduction of one of Rembrandt's self-portraits can be had for about three dollars, while the original couldn't be had for fifty million? Is all that brush impasto meaningless? How come you can get T-shirts mimicking the cave paintings in Altimira, like the cute
cartoon a moment ago, but the actual site gets sealed off to protect the cave from
excess human visitation? I would never want my own work reproduced digitally. But this certainly does not imply that digital capture and reproduction are not valid for those who have mastered it as their personal medium. But even then, there's a real difference between a storage disc and an actual print carefully made and reviewed according to the specific visual dictates of the original photographer himself. Otherwise, that disc in itself is mere trash, as far as I'm concerned. Some subjects might have historical significance some day, and many of us collect antique photographs. But what attracts me is the beauty of the prints themselves, not a collection of binary chatter which might be turned into almost anything.

Marko

21-Oct-2009, 18:44

Drew,

As you said yourself, you are a photographer AND a printmaker.

I prefer to think of myself as a photographer. My primary concern is capture, that's where the photograph gets taken.

In the words of Cartier-Bresson:

Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

Whether it is printed in a book, printed on paper, or displayed on screen matters very little to me, as long as the image gets presented for what it is. Technology used to achieve presentation matters even less.

All the talk about "prints carefully hand-made to the specific visual dictates of the original photographer himself" means nothing more than marketing fluff to me.

IOW, content is King.

After all, if prints were indeed as important as photographs, wouldn't "photographer himself" be making them instead of "a printmaker"? ;)

Donald Miller

21-Oct-2009, 18:53

I am a photographer, printmaker, and visual production provider (HD still and HD video). I have purchased two 5Ds, one 5DII, and have a 1DS III on the way as I speak. I also own a 5X7 Wisner with a bevy of lenses. For my needs and uses there is no compromise using digital...especially the 21 mp cameras. I would sell both of the 5Ds if someone wanted a good used camera at a reasonable price. I would also sell all of the LF gear if I could get a reasonable price...unfortunately that is probably not in the cards at this time.

Donald Miller

Drew Wiley

21-Oct-2009, 18:53

Glad you're not a food critic, Marko; think I'll choose my own restaurants. We are
different species indeed!

Drew Wiley

21-Oct-2009, 19:00

"Hunters, after all, aren't cooks". Well, there are certainly times I wish they were.
At least the wives would make them pluck their own game fowl, gut it, and hopefully
remove the pellets. Fish need to be put on ice, and venison needs to be dressed by
the hunter. And yes, I can recall a number of hunted meals in the field when I choked down what was shot and cooked by a friend, or secretly went hungry after
tossing the meat behind a tree and hoping that some bear wouldn't find it and choke
to death himself! Yet I see a lot of second-hand-printed photographs that make me
even more nauseated than that (literally!)

Marko

21-Oct-2009, 19:01

Indeed, Drew.

I would made poor critic, for I am too concerned with my own food to care what you eat.

sanking

21-Oct-2009, 19:20

I know that Sandy.

I was simply replying to a non-sequitur statement in the same fashion.

;)

OK, but to be precise, there is an existing color print on paper that is about 130 years old, and quite a number of them in existence about 100-110 years old, plus many transparency type color images about 90-100 years old. Many of these are in very good condition.

Ironically, most color printing processes from the 1930s through the 1980s offered little in the way of permanence. Exceptions would be three color carbon and carbro, and dye transfer printing (if the print was kept in the dark).

The point is that the permanence of certain kinds of photographic image processes (carbon, autochrome, color screen processes) is a matter of historical record, and there are many existing examples of this work.

Sandy

Drew Wiley

21-Oct-2009, 19:21

Marko - your diatribes are always welcome as comic relief, but what I truly
can't figure out is what you're doing on a LF forum in the first place if print quality is a non-issue?

Marko

21-Oct-2009, 21:23

OK, but to be precise, there is an existing color print on paper that is about 130 years old, and quite a number of them in existence about 100-110 years old, plus many transparency type color images about 90-100 years old. Many of these are in very good condition.

Ironically, most color printing processes from the 1930s through the 1980s offered little in the way of permanence. Exceptions would be three color carbon and carbro, and dye transfer printing (if the print was kept in the dark).

The point is that the permanence of certain kinds of photographic image processes (carbon, autochrome, color screen processes) is a matter of historical record, and there are many existing examples of this work.

Sandy

Sandy,

I know, no argument about any of that here.

The point of my reply was simply sarcasm directed toward what was essentially a sophomoric quip, that's all.

Something along the lines of "it ain't rocket science"... Nothing against either rockets or science. :)

Marko

21-Oct-2009, 21:31

Marko - your diatribes are always welcome as comic relief, but what I truly
can't figure out is what you're doing on a LF forum in the first place if print quality is a non-issue?

Drew,

I don't recall talking to you in a very long while and especially not in this thread prior to you dragging my name out and using it for darts practice.

Perhaps a better question would be what are you doing here other than trying to make this board look and sound like a LF section of APUG?

Either way, you would do both of us a huge favor if you would start ignoring me in the same way as I am ignoring you. I wouldn't mind at all, trust me on that.

If you need help figuring out how to use the ignore list, don't hesitate to ask. If you get to it too late and I don't see your question, some kind soul will surely jump in and help you out.

Brian Ellis

21-Oct-2009, 22:24

Brian Ellis

21-Oct-2009, 22:50

Donald Miller

22-Oct-2009, 02:57

Donald - I don't know what you consider a "reasonable price" to be but FWIW the last time I checked - about three months ago - used 5Ds were selling on ebay in the $1,200 range.

I would sell either or both of the 5Ds I have for that amount.

dh003i

22-Oct-2009, 06:00

If you're keeping your large-format 4x5, then I definitely would recommend not spending the cash on a full-frame sensor DSLR, and would recommend an APS-C or Four-Thirds DSLSR.

paulr

22-Oct-2009, 16:33

Unless you have a hard drive crash. I work in IT and know what it takes to keep data safe. Most users don't do that. You might, but 99% of regular users don't. Most don't even backup regularly and if they it could be onto questionably stable media like DVD-Rs.

Keeping physical photographs safe requires knowing what you're doing (good storage conditions, archival materials, etc. etc.). Most people don't do any of this.

Keeping digital information safe likewise requires knowing what you're doing. And likewise, most people don't.

What's common practice for casual users circa right is not what I'm talking about.

Kuzano

22-Oct-2009, 19:08

Presuming you are selling your LF equipment, it will put some LF pieces into the market for all the "fed up" DSLR users who are switching to film and/or Large Format.

As to what DSLR... the disgusting parts of DSLR are the constant "advances" in technology, necessitating a new camera every few months.

As with LF... it's not the camera's. It's the lenses, and your abilities. I won't even begin to get into advising on digital. It's a frustrating nightmare, and it's driving people either "back to film" or driving people who have never used film, into the film arena.

Good luck, and in anticipation of your journey, .... Welcome Back~!!!!

Donald Miller

22-Oct-2009, 19:39

dh003i

22-Oct-2009, 20:23

Kuzano,

I think you are being a little bit harsh on DSLRs. Yes, some of the features that are advertised are really just gimmicks or not even improvements at all (see the ever-increasing pixel count, going beyond ability to resolve individual pixels). However, many of the features are indeed useful. Usually, the pro or semi-pro models of DSLRs are focused on IQ-quality increases: less noise, more dynamic range, etc.

Consumer DSLR's will come out with new convenience features for consumers, such as in-camera sepia-effects, etc.

Nothing requires anyone to buy the latest and newest technology. I've had an Olympus E-3 for a few years (granted, they haven't come out with a successor). Although when the successor to the E-3 comes out, it will likely have better noise-performance and improvements in dynamic range. I may pick it up after its price drops significantly. Or I may just sell my E-3 and use the proceeds to upgrade. Or I may not upgrade at all.

No-one is forcing me or anyone else to upgrade to the latest generation of DSLR's. Many people are still using 6- or 8-megapixel DSLRs. Many Olympus users still use the 5-megapixel E1. The latest DSLR upgrades should be looked at as analogous to improvements in film technology.

Wayne Crider

23-Oct-2009, 07:51

Not sure if it is my mood, but suddenly today I started thinking about giving up the 4x5 and buying a DSLR.

I was thinking more about what would be the best D camera to take when shooting my 4x5. :) I have been considering a choice in the 4/3rds format just for the size consideration and ability to use other systems lenses. I'd also like to use it as a meter.

paulr

23-Oct-2009, 09:12

As to what DSLR... the disgusting parts of DSLR are the constant "advances" in technology, necessitating a new camera every few months.

Were there any advances in the last five years that force anyone to buy a new camera?? I feel like I know plenty of people who use old ones.

And a few who always must have the latest / greatest, but that seems like a personality issue, not a technology one ... it affects their lives well beyond photography.

dh003i

23-Oct-2009, 10:34

I was thinking more about what would be the best D camera to take when shooting my 4x5. :) I have been considering a choice in the 4/3rds format just for the size consideration and ability to use other systems lenses. I'd also like to use it as a meter.

Yep, that's what I do. I think that 4/3rds is an excellent compliment to a 4x5, because with 4/3rds, you get tremendous reach (but you also have lenses like the 12-60 or 14-54, where 12mm on 4/3rds is close to 90mm on 4x5, or 14mm is close to 105mm). The other nice thing is that because it is a 4:3 aspect ratio, it is pretty close to 5:4 (at least, it's closer than 3:2). What I do is I take shots with my 14-54 on E3, and then if I get one I really like, I also take it with my 4x5.

Marko

23-Oct-2009, 11:36

I was thinking more about what would be the best D camera to take when shooting my 4x5. :) I have been considering a choice in the 4/3rds format just for the size consideration and ability to use other systems lenses. I'd also like to use it as a meter.

When I go shooting with my 4x5, I take Canon G10 with me. It's small enough to fit into a vest or a jacket pocket. It's got big, wonderfully detailed and responsive LCD, manual mode, histogram and many other goodies, so it is perfectly usable for scouting, documenting, proofing and measuring.

dh003i

23-Oct-2009, 12:22

When I go shooting with my 4x5, I take Canon G10 with me. It's small enough to fit into a vest or a jacket pocket. It's got big, wonderfully detailed and responsive LCD, manual mode, histogram and many other goodies, so it is perfectly usable for scouting, documenting, proofing and measuring.

To follow up on this, IF you just want a camera to use for scouting for your 4x5, and for metering, you will probably over-buy if you get a DSLR (but not if you also want it to take shots in its own right).

paulr

23-Oct-2009, 12:45

The point is that the permanence of certain kinds of photographic image processes (carbon, autochrome, color screen processes) is a matter of historical record, and there are many existing examples of this work.

This is true, although so is the converse: there are many prints made on materials presumed permanent that have faded or discolored for unknown reasons. The Museum of Modern Art in NYC has had problems with a handful of Stieglitz's platinum prints, and there are many gelatin silver prints that have become conservational nightmares. Many of these were produced by photographers whose other work has lasted just fine.

Nowadays we have the benefit of simulated aging and other tests. They're imperfect, but probably better than nothing. Through most of the medium's history, photographers used anecdotal evidence, or they just hoped for the best, or they never considered the issue at all! Ultimately, we're all making educated guesses. The only way to know for sure how your work will look in 150 years is to not die.

In the digital world, probably even more than in the material world, conservation issues have become mainstream and big money. With cheaper bandwidth and storage, individuals will eventually benefit from the kinds of technologies used by enterprises. This is good news for anyone seeking immortality, whether your originals are film, pixels, or paint on canvas.

William McEwen

23-Oct-2009, 13:17

To your original question: I've had a Nikon d-40 that I bought for about $500 two years ago. I like it a lot, and use it mostly for snapshots of the kids. I'm sure the camera is a lot cheaper now, and for $500 you can probably get a newer model.

Six megapixels is plenty, the camera is small and light and works nicely.

But I'll be using my 8x10 camera for serious stuff until I can no longer get film and paper.

By then if the digital papers and print surfaces haven't improved, I'll retire from serious work.

h2oman

23-Oct-2009, 13:24

Wayne,

I have always liked photography, but have gone several periods of my adult life without any camera after somehow disabling whichever one I had owned. I decided about 4 years ago to get "serious" about things, and bought an Olympus E-500. Two years later I got a 4x5 and that's all I want to do now.

Anyway, I used the E-500 as my only meter initially, and had good results with color transparencies. When I decided to try B&W I bought a spot meter. I still use the E-500 for looking at scenes - I've marked spots on the kit zoom lens that correspond to the focal lengths I have for 4x5. I know that the more experienced people here can tell right away which lens to use, but I often can't.

The E-500 was pretty inexpensive (relative to other things on the market), and one of the lightest DSLRs. I think the E-420 or E-400 (I haven't kept up with models since getting the 4x5) is lighter yet. If you want a 4/3 DSLR I would suggest considering one of those.

al olson

23-Oct-2009, 14:19

...
I would never want my own work reproduced digitally. But this certainly does not imply that digital capture and reproduction are not valid for those who have mastered it as their personal medium. But even then, there's a real difference between a storage disc and an actual print carefully made and reviewed according to the specific visual dictates of the original photographer himself.
...

This brings to mind another side of digital -
Was it not Brett Weston who destroyed all of his negatives saying something to the effect that, "There are other people who could print my negatives and some may print them better than I, but then the prints wouldn't be mine."

Now Brett had thousands of admirers for his work. I have three and I am not certain about the third. I have been considering the destruction of my negatives as well, leaving only prints of what I consider the best work for someone else to destroy.

Now I realize that I will have to hunt down and destroy all the magnetic media on which I have recorded my scans. But some are not in my possession. Someone else could be Photoshopping and printing my images and then they wouldn't be mine. :(

Robert Hughes

23-Oct-2009, 14:28

I have been considering the destruction of my negatives as well... I will have to hunt down and destroy all the magnetic media on which I have recorded my scans....someone else could be Photoshopping and printing my images and then they wouldn't be mine. :(
Don't worry about 'em. People can Photoshop each other's shoelaces. And after you're dead, will you really care that somebody PS'ed a surfing kitten on your otherwise perfect Half Dome?

paulr

23-Oct-2009, 15:48

But even then, there's a real difference between a storage disc and an actual print carefully made and reviewed according to the specific visual dictates of the original photographer himself. Otherwise, that disc in itself is mere trash, as far as I'm concerned. Some subjects might have historical significance some day, and many of us collect antique photographs. But what attracts me is the beauty of the prints themselves, not a collection of binary chatter which might be turned into almost anything.

There's a difference, but it's fundamentally smaller than the difference between a negative and a print from that negative.

When you print from a digital file, all of your choices and manipulations are done on the file itself. The only remaining interpretations are ones built into the physical printing process (weather it's a normal ink print, monochrome pigment ink print, light jet, or god knows what).

ICC profiles even work to minimize these differences.

One of the nice things about ink jet, in general, is how stable the printers are (assuming they're not broken completely ... another subject ...). I can make a piezo print today and another one in a month, and they'll essentially be identical. Nothing's perfect ... there will be miniscule changes in the inks, and the paper stock might be from a different batch. But now we're talking about the kinds of differences that require close side-by-side comparison.

Even if one of my files were printed by someone else decades from now on some new kind of printer, there's enough information there to get the printmaker into the right ballpark. It's not the same kind of start-from-scratch interpretation he'd be doing while printing from my negatives onto silver paper.

Marko

23-Oct-2009, 17:40

When you print from a digital file, all of your choices and manipulations are done on the file itself. The only remaining interpretations are ones built into the physical printing process (weather it's a normal ink print, monochrome pigment ink print, light jet, or god knows what).

ICC profiles even work to minimize these differences.

One of the nice things about ink jet, in general, is how stable the printers are (assuming they're not broken completely ... another subject ...). I can make a piezo print today and another one in a month, and they'll essentially be identical. Nothing's perfect ... there will be miniscule changes in the inks, and the paper stock might be from a different batch. But now we're talking about the kinds of differences that require close side-by-side comparison.

Even if one of my files were printed by someone else decades from now on some new kind of printer, there's enough information there to get the printmaker into the right ballpark. It's not the same kind of start-from-scratch interpretation he'd be doing while printing from my negatives onto silver paper.

And therein lies the answer as to why some of those who identify themselves too closely with the craft part of the process feel so threatened by digital.

I understand it is not pleasant to see one's craft go the way of the weavers, dactylographers (remember those? It wasn't all that long ago...) or punch card programmers, but it is not technology's fault. Its purpose is precisely to relieve us from repetitive mindless drudgery.

Drew Wiley

23-Oct-2009, 18:15

PAULR - certainly for those who need to make multiples of certain images in a
relatively concise period of time, digital has logical appeal, along with the ease of
certain kinds of corrections. In the long haul, however, there are other issues,
inherent to anyone printing another person's work. Mozart penned down his music,
but does that mean the average high school band will make it sound the way he
intended it? Then there are certain untangibles, sometimes even inherent to the
characteristics of relatively hands-on processes. Unlike a previous comment, I
personally reard the print AS the content itself. Prior to that, it's simply inert.
Might as well be a postcard or picture in a magazine, or blotch on the web. That kind
of thing certainly has its own sphere of relevance, but never satisfies. Frankly, the
best digital printmakers I know (and I do know some of the very best) did their
best work traditionally. They changed for other reasons - ease, being paid to consult
for the industry, workshops, whatever. Digital photography does not in any manner
threaten analog - it's just another path. I don't feel threatened by it. Nor is digital
always easier, nor always as cost-effective. I know digital engineers who use film
and old-fashioned darkrooms for personal reasons. The young engineer who
accompanied on my last backpack trip remarked how it was just too easy to take
and erase pictures with his SLSR, so it impeded his learning curve! He was thinking of selling it and looking for an old totally manual Pentax like his dad owned. Every
time I took a shot with the 4x5 he wanted to look under the darkcloth to see the
composition itself. I'm not naive. I gave my own wife a DLSR, after spending about
two weeks trying to figure out how to turn off about 90% of the redundant features!
She has three advanced degrees and knows about every computer system I can
think of, but actually prefers her little film point-n-shoot!

Andrew Mckay

23-Oct-2009, 20:42

I find the film v digital debate very strange. Why not enjoy both ? I got the photography bug about 3 years and I learnt a lot in a very short time thanks to dslr. I decided to get LF because the whole process fascinates me , I felt it was step up in the the right direction and I love looking at transparencies but I still keep my dslr on me all the time and still get great enjoyment out of it

Chris Strobel

23-Oct-2009, 21:46

To the OP,

I like the Pentax dslr's.I have the K10D and K20D.Both can be had cheap now on the used market.All the old manual Takumar and Pentax glass is fairly cheap, fun to collect, and many of outstanding optical quality.I use them with a Nodal Ninja 2 panoramic head on a Feisol tripod, and stitch with Autopano Pro, focus blend with Helicon Focus, and exposure blend with Photomatix softwares.All the resolution, DOF, and DR you could ever want can be had this way, and much cheaper than going with a top of the line dslr.I still prefer my 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras however.Just more fun to use for me.

Chris

paulr

23-Oct-2009, 23:10

Unlike a previous comment, I
personally reard the print AS the content itself. Prior to that, it's simply inert.

If we'd had this conversation 10 years ago, I'd agree wholeheartedly. Now I only agree halfheartedly. Or quarterheartedly. While I'll always have affection for a lovely print, and for the craft behind it, more and more I've come to regard the print as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. I think beautiful, precisely rendered prints are vital to some kinds of work; much less so to others.

Frankly, the best digital printmakers I know (and I do know some of the very best) did their best work traditionally.

That's not really a surprise. The fundamentals of printmaking--deciding what print values best serve an image--are the same, whether you're dealing with silver or platinum or ink. People with no experience outside of the digital world probably don't have enough experience yet to be masters.

Digital photography does not in any manner threaten analog - it's just another path.

In a perfect world, yes. In the marketplace, unfortunately, the analog industry has been threatened. It won't go away, but it's already been marginalized, which has forced old school printers like me to adapt. Luckily there are still a number of choices. I still shoot film, but I've been printing digitally ever since my favorite paper vanished.

I gave my own wife a DLSR, after spending about
two weeks trying to figure out how to turn off about 90% of the redundant features!
She has three advanced degrees and knows about every computer system I can
think of, but actually prefers her little film point-n-shoot!

I'm in the same boat. Not that I can't figure that stuff out, but I'd rather not think about it. I'm a creature of habit, like most creatures. And I'm used to simple cameras. I won't get a dslr until 1) I'm ready to deal with all the buttons, and 2) I can afford it.

jnantz

24-Oct-2009, 10:24

Not sure if it is my mood, but suddenly today I started thinking about giving up the 4x5 and buying a DSLR.

So - if you we're to switch to DSLR, what camera would you buy and why?

I shoot mainly landscapes, flora, and am interested in large wall prints up to 16x20.

You can talk me off the ledge if you like!

if you have a good lab/printer and a good interpolation program
you can make 16x20s with even a d100 or d200 ...

at the end of the end of the day it really isn't about all the equipment,
it s about enjoying yourself and the photographic images you made ...

have fun
john

Ben Syverson

24-Oct-2009, 11:06

jnantz

24-Oct-2009, 11:35

16x20" is small... Really small. Anyone can make a 16x20 with a cellphone camera these days. If that's as large as you need to print, then it doesn't make much sense to choose LF over digital because of sharpness or image quality. You might choose LF because of movements, lenses, workflow, etc, but not image quality.

However, bump it up to 30x40" or 40x50 and we're having a much different conversation...

it seems the only real reason to shoot lf "is because you want to "
pretty much anything you can do with a camera and darkroom
you can do with a numeric camera, file and PS ... ( not a cellphone, though )
and it is a lot less expensive ..
i think the difference between a cellphone camera and a high end one
is like the difference between a 8x10 and a 110 or half frame

Ben Syverson

24-Oct-2009, 11:38

it seems the only real reason to shoot lf "is because you want to "
Except when it comes to large prints, I think. If I could make convincing 40x50" prints with my DSLR, I would probably stop shooting 8x10. But that's not going to happen.

Kirk Gittings

24-Oct-2009, 11:42

16x20" is small... Really small. Anyone can make a 16x20 with a cellphone camera these days. If that's as large as you need to print, then it doesn't make much sense to choose LF over digital because of sharpness or image quality. You might choose LF because of movements, lenses, workflow, etc, but not image quality.

However, bump it up to 30x40" or 40x50 and we're having a much different conversation...

You honestly think that you could not tell the difference between a 16x20 from a cell phone and a 4x5 enlargement? If you really believe that then your ability to judge print quality is seriously in question.

Ben Syverson

24-Oct-2009, 12:30

You honestly think that you could not tell the difference between a 16x20 from a cell phone and a 4x5 enlargement? If you really believe that then your ability to judge print quality is seriously in question.
When did I say that? I never said I couldn't tell the difference, just that a cell phone can make a perfectly good 16x20.

I just got three 16x20 digital C prints made. Like all C prints, they don't resolve needle-thin detail like inkjet prints do. Looking at the file and the prints side-by-side, I figure I'm getting about 150 DPI from the prints. 16x20" at 150 DPI is 2400x3000, or 7.2 Megapixels.

There are plenty of 8 MP cell phones out there, and some even higher.

Could I tell the difference between the 16x20 from the cell phone vs 4x5? Obviously, but sharpness-wise, they'll be comparable.

I'm just saying, any entry-level DSLR will give you a nice looking 16x20 C-print. If that's the largest you need to go, you don't need to be using LF for its resolution.

dh003i

24-Oct-2009, 12:47

Ben Syverson

24-Oct-2009, 13:47

See above.

pablo batt

24-Oct-2009, 13:52

is that a real photograph??

no its a inkjet

lol

Juergen Sattler

24-Oct-2009, 14:20

If I didn't know that this was the LF forum, I'd think I accidentally clicked on the APUG site:-)

Robert Hughes

24-Oct-2009, 14:21

Maybe he's looking at the prints from 100 feet away? ;-)
Nah, they both look the same on a flash drive :p

pablo batt

24-Oct-2009, 15:01

whats a flash drive?

if it involves a flash gun and a car , im really not interested

crazy kids

PViapiano

24-Oct-2009, 15:23

I haven't read this whole thread yet, and not sure I want to, but...no cell phone lens can match a camera lens, so sure, you can make 16x20s with them, but the optics aren't there, regardless of the pixel count.

paulr

24-Oct-2009, 15:27

When did I say that? I never said I couldn't tell the difference, just that a cell phone can make a perfectly good 16x20.

As is always the case, "perfectly good" is a subjective judgement. It depends on who's looking. And more importantly, on what the work in question requires from the print.

I've seen plenty of "perfectly good" 16 x 20 prints made from 35mm. They were grainy and fairly soft, and when you got close you'd see more image structure, not more detail. This is perfectly good for the gritty, Magnum street journalism esthetic where you often see it. It's not perfectly good or even half good for some other kinds of work.

For some of my work older work, I liked the way the prints looked up to about 3X enlargement (just under 12 x 9 inches). When I tried 4X enlargements (16x20 ish) I wasn't as happy. My current color work looks ok to me at about 5X. It's not that the negatives are better (they're worse, actually) but the work just doesn't require that pristine contact print look in order to succeed.

Camera phones at 16x20? It'll work fine for some things, but it will look like a huge enlargement. Comparing to 4x5 is apples and oranges.

Ben Syverson

24-Oct-2009, 15:42

Comparing to 4x5 is apples and oranges.
Maybe, but it's not apples and automobiles.

My main point remains: you can make great 16x20s from digital cameras -- especially a DSLR. No one "needs" to shoot 4x5 in order to make 16x20 C-prints. So if you'll never print larger than that, and you don't need extensive movements, I think you should take a good hard look at DSLRs. Don't take my word for it -- get 16x20 digital C prints from a DSLR and a 4x5 and compare. In terms of sharpness and tonality, there's zero difference.

Personally, 16x20 is the absolute smallest I'll print. I shoot 8x10 because I want to go big.

paulr

24-Oct-2009, 22:19

Don't take my word for it -- get 16x20 digital C prints from a DSLR and a 4x5 and compare. In terms of sharpness and tonality, there's zero difference.

Not sure how that's possible. To resolve just 5 lp/mm on a 16x20 print, you'd need 20 megapixels. Most decent film/optical systems at 4x5 can deliver quite a bit more than this. People with good eyesight looking closely can see detail as fine as 11 lp /mm. You need a minimum of 5 lp/mm to create a sense of sharpness.

I agree that a 16x20 from a dslr can look very good. I can even imagine a 16x20 from a dslr looking better than one from LF at a viewing distance of a few feet (assuming skillful sharpening and file management). But for anyone who wants to see tactile, sharp, detailed images up close, they'll be able to get noticeably better results from LF.

Of course, people with other priorities will be better served by a dslr.

Ron Marshall

25-Oct-2009, 08:55

If I were buying for your stated use I would get the current Canon EOS 5DMkII. Would couple it with a 24, 50, 100macro and 200 f/2.8. One or two extension tubes and a 1.4 converter for the 200.
Take a look at http://www.chuckkimmerle.com and see what digital B&W can do. Good work and good printing. All pixelography, 100%.

If it works for you and helps you get what you want then do it.

He does nice work. Do you know if he prints using a standard or a piezography inkset?

Brian_A

25-Oct-2009, 09:01

I have a Canon G10 (That I use in combination with a GigaPan), a Nikon D200 and a 4x5 along with a 6x17 back for the 4x5. I find use for all of them for different circumstances. They are all tools and it depends on what I need to accomplish. I don't want to get rid of any of them, although I wouldn't mind upgrading the D200 to a D700.

Chris Strobel

25-Oct-2009, 15:58

If I were buying for your stated use I would get the current Canon EOS 5DMkII. Would couple it with a 24, 50, 100macro and 200 f/2.8. One or two extension tubes and a 1.4 converter for the 200.
Take a look at http://www.chuckkimmerle.com and see what digital B&W can do. Good work and good printing. All pixelography, 100%.

If it works for you and helps you get what you want then do it.

Awesome B&W photography, but the examples on his website look way too over sharpened to me, almost to the point of looking like illustrations.

mandoman7

25-Oct-2009, 16:17

I would agree that Mr. Kimmerle is a fine shooter, and that the images are very well processed. But we are not looking at prints, though, are we?

willwilson

25-Oct-2009, 18:17

It is very tempting to make the switch, especially with the introduction of cameras like the 5dmkII (19"x28" prints at 200dpi). DSLRs have finally begun to be a legitimate competitor to 4x5, but for me its both a monetary and functional decision (movements/macro). You would at least need the 24mm TS, 16-35mm 2.8, and 100mm Macro, to be able to mimic the capabilities of LF, that's $3900 plus $2700 for the body...total $6600. If you don't need movements then you can subtract the $2200 for the 24mm TS.

You would also need a printer...Epson 7880 - $3000. You might also need a computer upgrade we will add another $1700 for the new 27" imac.

Total to go full digital and produce top of the line 24" wide landscape and flora prints = $11300. This number will keep me in the darkroom and LF for the foreseeable future.

I must admit digital is pretty nice for panoramas. You can get some great stuff out of a Canon 20D ($300 used) and 10 or more stitched vertical frames. I use the 10-22mm EFS zoom. If you have somebody else make your prints you are set for about $1000 plus a computer.

Ben Syverson

25-Oct-2009, 18:59

You need a minimum of 5 lp/mm to create a sense of sharpness.
C-prints don't resolve 5 lp/mm. From what I can tell, it's more like 3. So the bar is actually much lower.

But for anyone who wants to see tactile, sharp, detailed images up close, they'll be able to get noticeably better results from LF.
Not with 16x20 C-prints. There is just no advantage in terms of sharpness and detail.

sanking

25-Oct-2009, 19:04

I agree that a 16x20 from a dslr can look very good. I can even imagine a 16x20 from a dslr looking better than one from LF at a viewing distance of a few feet (assuming skillful sharpening and file management). But for anyone who wants to see tactile, sharp, detailed images up close, they'll be able to get noticeably better results from LF.

Of course, people with other priorities will be better served by a dslr.

Much of my work, most of which is monochorme carbon transfer prints in sizes from 10X14" t0 17X25", works best with very fine detail that can only be obtained with high resolution. I have made some very nice prints with 15mp DSLR and 12mp Canon G9 (converted to infrared), but this work in no way has the kind of fine detail I get with 5X7" film. In fact, it does not even come close to the detail I get with Mamiya 7II 6X7cm. My remarks are of course based on one exposure photography. Making multiple shots and stitching with DSLR gives great results but this type of photography is not practical for many kinds of photography.

DSLR has many advantages , but if fine detail in print size of 16X20 or larger is requried don't expect it to replace MF or LF film, especially in B&W.

Sandy King

paulr

26-Oct-2009, 00:02

C-prints don't resolve 5 lp/mm. From what I can tell, it's more like 3. So the bar is actually much lower

I don't know who told you that, but it's wildly incorrect. The resolution of c-print paper (or any paper) is entirely dependent on the surface. Glossy papers can resolve much finer detail, at much higher MTFs, than the human eye could ever see.

Printing in ink on matte finish art papers, I've easily resolved over 11 lp/mm with piezo inks. Glossy c-print paper could likely resolve 10 or 20 times this (although no one could tell the difference between the two without a loupe).

Ben Syverson

26-Oct-2009, 00:08

Printing in ink on matte finish art papers, I've easily resolved over 11 lp/mm with piezo inks. Glossy c-print paper could likely resolve 10 or 20 times this (although no one could tell the difference between the two without a loupe).
Are you talking about inkjet? I'm referring to C-prints. Real c-prints. As in RA-4.

There's no way RA-4 comes remotely close to 5 lp/mm. This is from direct experience, both with high-end Lambda output and direct prints from negatives.

Oren Grad

26-Oct-2009, 07:29

Are you talking about inkjet? I'm referring to C-prints. Real c-prints. As in RA-4.

There's no way RA-4 comes remotely close to 5 lp/mm. This is from direct experience, both with high-end Lambda output and direct prints from negatives.

Ctein has tested many papers, B&W and color, using a contact-printed high-resolution bar target. He reported that Portra III RC paper recorded a resolution of 100+ lp/mm and Ultra II RC recorded 125+ lp/mm, and that these were typical of color print materals introduced from the 80's onward.

See "Is Your Print Paper Sharp Enough?", Photo Techniques, Mar/Apr 2002.

Paul, in the same article he reports why resolution greater than 10 lp/mm matters, up to a point. The gist of it is that it's possible to tell the difference between a square-wave pattern and a sine-wave pattern at 10 lp/mm. Mathematically, the bulk of that difference is contributed by the third harmonic, which means that somehow information at 30 lp/mm is being perceived. This is consistent with his tests of the long-discontinued Ektaflex print material, which recorded 18-22 lp/mm but nevertheless was perceived to be less sharp than conventional Ektacolor paper. But 30 lp/mm is about as far as makes any perceptible difference.

Achieving greater than 10 lp/mm in pictorial prints, of course, requires a good negative to start with as well as very careful printing technique, whether for contact printing or enlargement.

Ben Syverson

26-Oct-2009, 09:50

Ctein has tested many papers, B&W and color, using a contact-printed high-resolution bar target. He reported that Portra III RC paper recorded a resolution of 100+ lp/mm and Ultra II RC recorded 125+ lp/mm, and that these were typical of color print materals introduced from the 80's onward.
Oh, Ctein said it so it must be true. Nonsense. The paper may give a (very) smudgy rendering of the bar chart, but it really will come down to what you define as "detail."

A 300 DPI file can resolve 5.9 lp/mm. If color papers could resolve way beyond that, you would expect any Lambda/Lightjet/etc print to reproduce every single tiny detail, down to individual stuck pixels or dust from scanning. The reality is that the detail visible looks very close to the same file viewed at 50% in Photoshop. That would mean the print is really only about 150 DPI, or 3 lp/mm.

This is consistent with my experience printing color photochemically. Looking at the image through the grain focuser, you can see details from the negative that just never make it to the print the way they do with B&W.

You can see it with your own eyes, really. Every C-print I've ever seen in my entire life, from the Guggenheim to the gallery, has the same smudginess up close. I freelanced for the curator of a corporate collection and spent time examining Crewdson and Barney C-prints up-close. Guess what? Same story -- in the 3-5 lp/mm range.

Personally I don't really care about microdetail in prints. I care more about texture close-up, and I've found that C-prints are smoother than inkjet, which have a distracting stippling texture.

Oren Grad

26-Oct-2009, 10:19

Oh, Ctein said it so it must be true. Nonsense. The paper may give a (very) smudgy rendering of the bar chart, but it really will come down to what you define as "detail."

Have you replicated his test, with a careful contact printing of a precision test target and inspection of the prints under a microscope?

I'm not disputing what you've seen in practice - chromogenic prints usually look fuzzy to me too. It's just that I think you're way underestimating the extent to which the losses are due to the enlarging process, whether traditional conventional optical projection or Lambda/Lightjet etc., rather than the inherent properties of the print material.

And yes, to some extent the distinction is academic. For the print "consumer", it's a systems problem, not a paper problem - if the detail can't be gotten on to the paper with the tools and methods commonly available to the operator doing the printing, then for practical purposes it's unavailable. What somebody else can achieve under highly controlled laboratory conditions doesn't matter.

Brian Ellis

26-Oct-2009, 11:08

Awesome B&W photography, but the examples on his website look way too over sharpened to me, almost to the point of looking like illustrations.

I agree, some of the detail - in the trees for example - looks oversharpened to me as well. That could be a function of viewing a computer monitor rather than a print though I would have thought offhand that the opposite would occur (i.e. that any over-sharpening would show up more on a print than on a monitor).

It also could be caused by the fact that he sharpened the entire photograph by the same amount (i.e. he didn't sharp different areas of the print differently) because to me the areas that look oversharpened are mainly the areas of fine detail such as the leaves on the trees, which is where oversharpening is often most obvious.

I hate the over-sharpened look that you sometimes see in digital prints (not saying these are over-sharpened, they just look that way to me on my monitor). To me nothing says "this is a digital print and I didn't know what I was doing" quite so clearly as an over-sharpened print. When I do the final sharpening I get it to the point that I think is right and then back off about 10%. I try to be a certain as possible on the first try that no parts of the print look over-sharpened.

paulr

26-Oct-2009, 11:34

Paul, in the same article he reports why resolution greater than 10 lp/mm matters, up to a point. The gist of it is that it's possible to tell the difference between a square-wave pattern and a sine-wave pattern at 10 lp/mm. Mathematically, the bulk of that difference is contributed by the third harmonic, which means that somehow information at 30 lp/mm is being perceived. This is consistent with his tests of the long-discontinued Ektaflex print material, which recorded 18-22 lp/mm but nevertheless was perceived to be less sharp than conventional Ektacolor paper. But 30 lp/mm is about as far as makes any perceptible difference.

Achieving greater than 10 lp/mm in pictorial prints, of course, requires a good negative to start with as well as very careful printing technique, whether for contact printing or enlargement.

I thinkg that's about right. It fits with the general research on visual perception. Although 30 lp/mm goes way beyond what anyone can see!

In my own tests, looking at the difference between prints band-limmited to 7lp/mm and 14 lp / mm, there's a slight difference in perceived detail. No difference in sharpness, all else equal. The biggest improvement is freedom from aliasing with slightly diagonal lines.

paulr

26-Oct-2009, 11:49

Oh, Ctein said it so it must be true. Nonsense. The paper may give a (very) smudgy rendering of the bar chart, but it really will come down to what you define as "detail."

I haven't read the ctein tests, but I've seen MTF tests of gelatin silver, chromogenic, and ciba papers. These materials are essentially very slow photographic films. The emulsions themselves can capture stupefyingly, uselelessly fine detail. The only limitations on their resolution come from surface texture, which in glossy materials is irrelevent ... any of these papers can resolve finer detail at much higher MTF than any negative that will be printed on them.

The reality is that the detail visible looks very close to the same file viewed at 50% in Photoshop. That would mean the print is really only about 150 DPI, or 3 lp/mm.

Most likely this has to do with the lambda machine's optical resolution.

This is consistent with my experience printing color photochemically. Looking at the image through the grain focuser, you can see details from the negative that just never make it to the print the way they do with B&W.

I'll deffer to people who have contact printing experience with c-print paper to comment. I've personally looked at c-print contact prints with a loupe and see more than with the naked eye ...

Personally I don't really care about microdetail in prints. I care more about texture close-up, and I've found that C-prints are smoother than inkjet, which have a distracting stippling texture.

I'm not interested so much in microdetail either. But I'd define that as detail you can't see without a loupe. A print that's band-limmited to 5 lp/mm is capable of looking very sharp (the most critical detail is in the 1 lp/mm to 5 lp/mm range). But if the subjact matter includes finer detail, you'll miss it. It would be fairly obvious in a well made print, under good lighting, viewed up close and side by side.

Ink jet prints made with the newest printers don't have visible stippling anymore. They tend to look different from c-prints, but my ability to guess which is which has dropped well below 100%.

And the monochrome ink systems are amazing. I can't see ink dots on my piezo prints even with a loupe. The tones are as smooth as platinum prints.

Scratched Glass

26-Oct-2009, 12:12

After many years with my D100 I'm tired of the resolution, and can't afford the high end camera and lenses that might make me happy. My solution was to buy a speed graphic, lenses and accessories and a high end point and shoot for my casual photos. It is very early in this experiment and I'll see how it goes.

Paul Kierstead

26-Oct-2009, 13:03

I really think that for the vast majority of shooters, hand them a DSLR and an LF camera, get them to go on separate shoots with each, they will come back with pretty different work.

The exception might be for those with a highly 'refined' vision or style who actively strive to maintain that style regardless of equipment. And even then, let them use the stuff for a while, their vision will alter a little.

I'm not saying one or the other is 'better' or 'best' (how I hate that word in most contexts), but that the differences in results extend beyond the technical merits/aspects. You can't *really* sub one for the other; the results will change.

John Brady

26-Oct-2009, 13:16

I have just recently stated shooting with digital along side my 8x10. Each is a tool capable of doing amazing things. I am able to do things with LF film that I can't do with digital and vice a versa.

With digital I am using a canon 5d II and the 17mm tilt shift lens. I am stitching 3 exposures of 3 stitches for a total of 9 exposures. I am blending the exposures, I don't like hdr. Here is an example.
www.timeandlight.com

Ben Syverson

26-Oct-2009, 13:20

I'll deffer to people who have contact printing experience with c-print paper to comment.
That would be me.

Trust me, C-prints are not finer grained than film.

paulr

26-Oct-2009, 14:00

paulr

26-Oct-2009, 14:02

That would be me.

Trust me, C-prints are not finer grained than film.

I don't trust, you!

Not that I think you're making it up, but I think you're misinterpreting evidence. MTF tests done by labs say you're wrong by orders of magnitude, as does my own experience with the materials in question.

Jeremy Moore

26-Oct-2009, 14:05

I am blending the exposures, I don't like hdr. Here is an example.
www.timeandlight.com

Egad--blending the exposures is HDR. HDR is "high dynamic range"; by blending the exposures you are increasing the dynamic range beyond that available to you in one exposure. You are doing HDR, yours just looks more natural and not like an acid trip.

This is almost as bad as people calling it tilt-shift when we all know it should be tilt-swing :D

Sorry--pet peeves :p

Ben Syverson

26-Oct-2009, 14:33

Not that I think you're making it up, but I think you're misinterpreting evidence.
Well, believe what you want to believe, but the proof is in the pudding. You could look at MTF charts until you're blue in the face -- I'm looking at RA4 contact prints and traditional prints (8x10 from 35mm) right now, and they simply aren't resolving microdetail very well. Certainly far, far less than any C41 film.

I mean, am I on crazy pills? Have you ever gotten traditionally printed color 4x6's from 35mm or 120 before? There's no way in hell those prints had all the detail of the negatives. An RA4 4x6 of 35mm probably shows 1/10th of the information on the film.

paulr

26-Oct-2009, 15:08

Well, believe what you want to believe, but the proof is in the pudding. You could look at MTF charts until you're blue in the face -- I'm looking at RA4 contact prints and traditional prints (8x10 from 35mm) right now, and they simply aren't resolving microdetail very well. Certainly far, far less than any C41 film.

I mean, am I on crazy pills? Have you ever gotten traditionally printed color 4x6's from 35mm or 120 before? There's no way in hell those prints had all the detail of the negatives. An RA4 4x6 of 35mm probably shows 1/10th of the information on the film.

You're not on crazy pills; you're making assumptions about cause and effect without taking into account other variables. When you say "You could look at MTF charts until you're blue in the face ..." you're telling me to dismiss a controlled experiment in favor of uncontrolled annecdote. I'm not gonna.

Yes, I've seen how fuzzy minilab c-prints are. I've also seen how incredibly detailed Steven Shore's c- contact prints are.

Daniel_Buck

26-Oct-2009, 15:39

Jeremy Moore

26-Oct-2009, 16:35

If you want to get into pet peeves, what you are describing as "HDR" is actually "tone-mapped" HDR files. An actual HDR file is not the same thing. Most people get this confused :)

True, but I didn't want to get into 32-bit HDRi files and the like, just that HDR is any use of:

techniques that allow a greater dynamic range of luminances between the lightest and darkest areas of an image than standard digital imaging techniques or photographic methods. Source (http://www.amazon.com/High-Dynamic-Range-Imaging-Acquisition/dp/0125852630/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1256599988&sr=8-1)

But you are right, his final output is not an HDR file, but tone-mapping through the use of HDR. Then again I don't ever think I said it was an HDR file, just that he was employing HDR in the creation of his final images.

John Brady

26-Oct-2009, 17:16

Sorry, I should have said I don't like tone mapping (for my work). In my experience, anytime I see work that people say they have employed hdr it has always been the carnival color version. I think I would have to be an idiot not to understand I am increasing dynamic range by merging exposures. I also made the assumption that I was describing this technique to people smart enough to get it.

jb

John Brady

26-Oct-2009, 17:26

Egad--blending the exposures is HDR. HDR is "high dynamic range"; by blending the exposures you are increasing the dynamic range beyond that available to you in one exposure. You are doing HDR, yours just looks more natural and not like an acid trip.

This is almost as bad as people calling it tilt-shift when we all know it should be tilt-swing :D

Sorry--pet peeves :p

I almost forgot to address your dislike about my using the term tilt shift. Canons own description below.

The widest tilt-shift lens in Canon's lineup, the TS-E 17mm f/4L lens expands shooting possibilities exponentially on EOS digital cameras. Designed with UD glass to minimize and compensate for chromatic aberrations, with a specially coated aspherical element for the highest possible glare-free image quality, this tilt-shift lens offers a diagonal angle of view of 104° on a full-frame SLR camera.

Jeremy Moore

26-Oct-2009, 19:04

I almost forgot to address your dislike about my using the term tilt shift. Canons own description below.

John, sorry, I wasn't even thinking of that! I was thinking of "tilt-shift" pictures (almost all faked in photoshop) that seem just as faddish as the disneyland-on-crack HDR work.

Gordon Moat

26-Oct-2009, 20:06

I recall that article. Recommended reading of a very well executed investigation.

Definitely not all C-prints are equal, but I still think this has much more to do with the not-as-good eyesight of a few people. My viewing of numerous C-prints in many galleries, museums, and exhibits, indicates that they can be quite good in resolution. My own judgment comes closer to Ctein's in this, though that will not stop someone else from claiming less ... but I still contend that is down to my better eyesight.
;)

Ciao!

Gordon

Ctein has tested many papers, B&W and color, using a contact-printed high-resolution bar target. He reported that Portra III RC paper recorded a resolution of 100+ lp/mm and Ultra II RC recorded 125+ lp/mm, and that these were typical of color print materals introduced from the 80's onward.

See "Is Your Print Paper Sharp Enough?", Photo Techniques, Mar/Apr 2002.

Paul, in the same article he reports why resolution greater than 10 lp/mm matters, up to a point. The gist of it is that it's possible to tell the difference between a square-wave pattern and a sine-wave pattern at 10 lp/mm. Mathematically, the bulk of that difference is contributed by the third harmonic, which means that somehow information at 30 lp/mm is being perceived. This is consistent with his tests of the long-discontinued Ektaflex print material, which recorded 18-22 lp/mm but nevertheless was perceived to be less sharp than conventional Ektacolor paper. But 30 lp/mm is about as far as makes any perceptible difference.

Achieving greater than 10 lp/mm in pictorial prints, of course, requires a good negative to start with as well as very careful printing technique, whether for contact printing or enlargement.

Ben Syverson

26-Oct-2009, 20:16

I'm 20/15 with glasses... even better up-close.

Gordon Moat

26-Oct-2009, 20:21

I'm 20/15 with glasses... even better up-close.

Good for you, but you stand alone here in your judgment of C-prints. Maybe if you write an article and get it accepted in a major photographic publication, more people would sway towards your opinions.
:cool:

paulr

26-Oct-2009, 21:08

I can't even imagine what mechanism could limit a photographic paper to a few line pairs / mm (not counting some kind of faux canvas texture). We're talking about a material that's incredibly slow by film standards, has a thin emulsion, and literally microscopic grain / dye cloud structure.

On the other hand, there are all kinds of unrelated variables that could limit the resolution of prints made by a minilab printer, a digital c-print machine, or even an old fashioned enlarger.

paulr

26-Oct-2009, 21:24

The gist of it is that it's possible to tell the difference between a square-wave pattern and a sine-wave pattern at 10 lp/mm. Mathematically, the bulk of that difference is contributed by the third harmonic, which means that somehow information at 30 lp/mm is being perceived.

The math is complicated but the basic concept is simple. To create a perfect square wave, even at 1 lp/mm, requires infinitely high frequency response. In other words, it can't be done ... not with photographic materials, or anything involving light, sound, electricity, or whatever. That perfect square wave can be represented on paper or digitally, but it can't exist in the physical world.

This is because the square wave requires values to change from 0% to 100% (or from -100% to 100%, in audio or electrical signals) in zero distance (or time).

In reality, an attempt to produce a squre will result in a slope that's shallower than vertical. In a photograph we see this as a slightly blurred edge. Technically what's happening is that the faux square wave is produced by an amalgam of higher frequency waves. So to reproduce a bar target with reasonable clarity at 1lp/mm you need much higher resolving power than 1lp/mm. If you don't have more, then those bars will look like a barely distinguishable blur.

This is why sinusoidal wave patterns give more useful information. Instead of making subjective judgments like "what's the finest pair of lines I can discern," we can use a microdensitometer and measure the actual contrast rendered at different frequencies. It's precise, repeatable, and gives measurements that actually correspond with how sharp or finely detailed things look.

edited to add:
I just checked out the section on this in Ctein's book. While I trust him on the resolution tests, he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of sharpness (surprising, considering his academic cred). He equates it with resolution, which is incorrect. He also states that humans can detect detail at spacial frequencies of 30 lp/mm, which contradicts all the experimental evidence, and even ignores the theoretical limits posed by the rod and cone density on the retina!

Ben Syverson

26-Oct-2009, 22:01

Maybe if you write an article and get it accepted in a major photographic publication, more people would sway towards your opinions.
:cool:
So getting my article in a magazine would change your mind? :rolleyes: Maybe I come from the old school, where you actually try out the process instead of reading what some other nerd writes in a blog or magazine.

But these days on the internet, I guess C-prints are 500 lp/mm, LF lenses are twice that, and unicorns routinely poop magical new numbers. I wish I knew what print lab that unicorn uses...

It's funny, because not long ago even Ctein has had to reconsider his old assumptions about resolution (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/what-i-and-you.html). Too bad he didn't publish it in a "major photographic publication," or else it might have some real sway.

paulr

26-Oct-2009, 22:22

So getting my article in a magazine would change your mind?

You'd change my mind by publishing on a cocktail napkin, as long as your article included valid premises and methodology, objective evidence, and sound logic.

That's what's been missing here, not fancy credentials or unicorn poop.

Ben Syverson

26-Oct-2009, 23:24

My interest is not in publishing evidence, it's in taking pictures...

Oren Grad

26-Oct-2009, 23:28

It's funny, because not long ago even Ctein has had to reconsider his old assumptions about resolution (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/what-i-and-you.html). Too bad he didn't publish it in a "major photographic publication," or else it might have some real sway.

Ummm, no. Ctein's results as reported in his PT article were measured and expressed in terms of lp/mm, not per picture width or height. The conundrum posed in that TOP post has no relationship to and no impact on his findings about paper resolution.

sanking

27-Oct-2009, 07:22

At the risk of stating the obvious I think there may be some confusion about sharpness and resolution. When we look at a print there is a subjective impression that the print is either sharp or not sharp. Sharpness is a subjective impression, but based on objective criteria such as micro and macro-contrast, overall contrast, and detail. A print can look sharp and yet have very little detail, and conversely a print can have a huge amount of detail and look soft.

It is very easy to measure resolution and come up with an objective result. You simply print a target and look at the results with a loupe and apply the appropriate formula. But I don't know anyone who can look at a print and determine that it has so many lp/mm. One can determine that the print is sharp or not sharp, but not how much resolution it has. Resolution can only be determined by the use of a target because detail itself is meaningless outside of the context of size.

Sandy King

paulr

27-Oct-2009, 08:11

At the risk of stating the obvious I think there may be some confusion about sharpness and resolution.

The risk seems to be zero! People get this wrong all the time, including Ctein. You should feel free repost this every few days :)

A print can look sharp and yet have very little detail, and conversely a print can have a huge amount of detail and look soft.

Bingo. And when digital tools are involved, bigger disrcrepancies between the two can show up.

It is very easy to measure resolution and come up with an objective result.

Kind of. One of the problems with resolution numbers is that you have to judge the finest pair of lines that's discernable. It's not always easy, and different people often report different results. "Is that really two distinct lines, or is it just a smudge with some gradation?"

You're right that sharpness is a fundamentally subjective quality. Although we've modelled human vision well enough to be able to predict sharpness quite well using MTF. And MTF offers other advantages: it lets you measure the performance of a whole system, and it's 100% objective and repeatable. The huge disadvantage is that you can't do it at home. Unless you have a room full of megabucks gizmos.

Oren Grad

27-Oct-2009, 08:32

Kind of. One of the problems with resolution numbers is that you have to judge the finest pair of lines that's discernable. It's not always easy, and different people often report different results. "Is that really two distinct lines, or is it just a smudge with some gradation?"

You're right that sharpness is a fundamentally subjective quality. Although we've modelled human vision well enough to be able to predict sharpness quite well using MTF. And MTF offers other advantages: it lets you measure the performance of a whole system, and it's 100% objective and repeatable. The huge disadvantage is that you can't do it at home. Unless you have a room full of megabucks gizmos.

You bet. Even if you could finesse the bar chart judging problem, a single resolution figure doesn't begin to characterize the capacity of a print medium to record detail, nor the likely subjective impression. MTF is a much more complete description. Digital processing can do freaky things to it, too, which are visually important but entirely missed by a resolution figure.

paulr

27-Oct-2009, 08:42

Digital processing can do freaky things to it, too, which are visually important but entirely missed by a resolution figure.

My digital piezo prints are much sharper than my enlargements, or even contact prints, from the same negative. I think if you asked anyone which print gave the impression of more resolution, they'd pick the piezo over the silver print every time.

But they're band-limited to 14 lp/mm, and in practice maybe closer to half that (because of paper surface, ink spread, etc.). With a loupe you can clearly see that there's more very fine detail in the silver prints.

What makes the ink prints so sharp is the impressive contrast between 1 lp/mm and 5 lp/mm. That's really what your eye cares about. Anything finer than that tends to fly below the radar, unless you're squinting or using a loupe.

Oren Grad

27-Oct-2009, 09:04

My digital piezo prints are much sharper than my enlargements, or even contact prints, from the same negative. I think if you asked anyone which print gave the impression of more resolution, they'd pick the piezo over the silver print every time.

But they're band-limited to 14 lp/mm, and in practice maybe closer to half that (because of paper surface, ink spread, etc.). With a loupe you can clearly see that there's more very fine detail in the silver prints.

What makes the ink prints so sharp is the impressive contrast between 1 lp/mm and 5 lp/mm. That's really what your eye cares about. Anything finer than that tends to fly below the radar, unless you're squinting or using a loupe.

To put it a bit differently: whatever one's subjective judgments about what kinds of pictures are best served by each, an MTF that has high contrast up to a middling frequency and then falls off a cliff looks very different from one that may have somewhat lower peak contrast but a very long, gradual tail.

Paul Kierstead

27-Oct-2009, 09:21

To put it a bit differently: whatever one's subjective judgments about what kinds of pictures are best served by each, an MTF that has high contrast up to a middling frequency and then falls off a cliff looks very different from one that may have somewhat lower peak contrast but a very long, gradual tail.

Ah, which brings us to one of the problems that arise so often in such discussions: The ability to measure two systems very accurately still does not always provide a basis for comparison if we don't entirely understand (or at least define) what the measurements tell us. So, when we measure MTF but end up with two different shapes in the graph, it can get very difficult to predict which one will give the better subjective impression (which is the point outside of scientific/intelligence uses, right?). Of course, we could just make prints and look at them.

If we are going to discuss 'sharpness', I am surprised that content is being ignored. For example, a narrow depth of field seems to give an impression of sharpness, even if the subject (in focus) has less 'resolution' then in an image with the whole shot 'in focus'. It isn't entirely based on objective criteria.

paulr

27-Oct-2009, 09:36

So, when we measure MTF but end up with two different shapes in the graph, it can get very difficult to predict which one will give the better subjective impression (which is the point outside of scientific/intelligence uses, right?). Of course, we could just make prints and look at them.

It's challenging, because it's a lot to learn. And graphs scare people. But looking at graphs, looking at prints, and looking at theories of visual perception, can teach you a lot. Playing with resolution and sharpening radius in photoshop can teach you a ton.

If we are going to discuss 'sharpness', I am surprised that content is being ignored.

Good point. Lighting also makes a huge difference. As does overall print contrast.

paulr

27-Oct-2009, 09:38

...an MTF that has high contrast up to a middling frequency and then falls off a cliff looks very different from one that may have somewhat lower peak contrast but a very long, gradual tail.

Right. And resulution numbers only tell you roughly where the end of that tail is.

sanking

27-Oct-2009, 11:11

adonis_abril

27-Oct-2009, 11:15

Not sure if it is my mood, but suddenly today I started thinking about giving up the 4x5 and buying a DSLR.

So - if you we're to switch to DSLR, what camera would you buy and why?

I shoot mainly landscapes, flora, and am interested in large wall prints up to 16x20.

You can talk me off the ledge if you like!

Use both :D I carry my 5D MK II on a chest pouch and my Chamonix w/ 3 lenses on backpacking treks in the Sierras. 4x5 is for compositions that I think solicits huge prints and the Canon to meter and judge the composition (there's discussions in the archives about this method but it works very well for me!). I also use the Canon for ad-hoc shots where otherwise a slow 4x5 can't get.

paulr

27-Oct-2009, 11:48

However, in the present discussion the difference has been stated to range between 3 lp/mm and 60-100 lp/mm for C type prints. This difference in resolution is too great to be explained by personal evaluative variations...

true! unless there's a lot of booze involved.

Ben Syverson

27-Oct-2009, 13:01

true! unless there's a lot of booze involved.
You would have to be drunk to think a C-print could resolve 100 lp/mm. That's 5080 DPI!

Show me that print.

Lynn Jones

27-Oct-2009, 13:18

Hi Jack,

I have 3 quality digi cameras but I still own a doen or so film cameras plus the antiques that I show to my students. 10 or 12 megapixels will give you quality 16 x 20's or even 20x30's.

However, i such things as long distance landscapes or aerials, nothing will approach film! Not only 20 to 80 square inches of product but you need to increase the percentage of longer wave lengths in order to penetrate at least a portion of aerial haze just from distance. Obviously, red or orange filter will aid in b/w or even for the more remarkable, IR film.

When the best in color is needed for distance or aerial, shoot tungsten chrome with an 85B filter, under expose 1 stop and push process 1 stop. That will give you the advantage of the increase in contrast by the use of chrome (about 35% over digital), and the increase in contrast from push processing, and finally with this technique, you are shooting with an orange filter, increasing the percentage of longer w/l's.

This was my secret process for 50 years prior to digital and teaching, so now I give it away.

Lynn

J Ney

27-Oct-2009, 13:28

There seem to be a fair amount of Nikon D200s out on the used market since the D300 came out recently... this is a great camera if you are set on getting a digital and you aren't already committed to a particular brand (due to previously purchased lenses)

paulr

27-Oct-2009, 13:49

You would have to be drunk to think a C-print could resolve 100 lp/mm. That's 5080 DPI!

Show me that print.

You'd have to contact print a test target onto the paper to find out, and examine it with a microscope. Any other means of making the print introduces variables, all of which degrade the image.

I imagine how well the paper does would depend more on the surface texture than anything else. But for glossy paper I'd be stunned if it couldn't resolve at least 25 lp/mm. I don't see why 100 would be impossible. 100 speed kodak c41 film is at 100% MTF at 20 lp/mm; 30% MTF at 50 lp/mm.

What's the speed of color paper? ASA 5? 10? You need a powerful microscope to see the paper's grain. What would stop it from resolving fine detail?

Ben Syverson

27-Oct-2009, 14:44

You need a powerful microscope to see the paper's grain. What would stop it from resolving fine detail?
You'll never see the paper's grain, but the nature of the paper itself keeps it from resolving grain-level detail. I'm not sure what physics is at work, but fine details "bleed" and bloom. It may be the thickness of the glossy coating diffracting the light. I'm not sure.

paulr

27-Oct-2009, 15:39

I'm not sure what physics is at work, but fine details "bleed" and bloom. It may be the thickness of the glossy coating diffracting the light. I'm not sure.

My interest is not in publishing evidence, it's in taking pictures...

... Which is it?

Ben Syverson

27-Oct-2009, 16:45

... Which is it?
Huh? That's not "publishing evidence," it's idle speculation.

If you have a continuing interest in this "how much can RA4 resolve," be my guest and order test charts and do the legwork yourself. Personally, the prints I've made are all the evidence I need.

I think you're trying to get me to "convince" you, but I have no desire to convince you of anything. The internet is full of people who believe Obama was born in Kenya and the US never landed on the moon. Believe whatever you want!

Gordon Moat

27-Oct-2009, 17:42

So getting my article in a magazine would change your mind? :rolleyes: Maybe I come from the old school, where you actually try out the process instead of reading what some other nerd writes in a blog or magazine.

But these days on the internet, I guess C-prints are 500 lp/mm, LF lenses are twice that, and unicorns routinely poop magical new numbers. I wish I knew what print lab that unicorn uses.........

Wow, and you're a complete ass too! I guess that must mean you are right.
:rolleyes:

I have done my own testing, and my experience does not match your experience. In fact my experiences and observations match those of many other well respected people in photography. Perhaps you should learn from them that you need to earn respect.

paulr

27-Oct-2009, 18:06

I think you're trying to get me to "convince" you, but I have no desire to convince you of anything.

Maybe I got that impression from the way you keep repeating your claim.

The internet is full of people who believe Obama was born in Kenya and the US never landed on the moon.

Yes ... people making those arguments repeat non-facts over and over until they seem true. Skeptics look at the available evidence (like birth certificates, moon rocks, or MTF test results).

Ben Syverson

27-Oct-2009, 18:43

Wow, and you're a complete ass too! ... Perhaps you should learn from them that you need to earn respect.
It's always great to get a lecture about respect from someone who has just finished calling you names. I guess I haven't earned enough "respect" to not be sworn at.

Skeptics look at the available evidence (like birth certificates, moon rocks, or MTF test results).
Forget skeptics. Scientists perform repeatable experiments. From what I can tell, the high numbers you've quoted come from one (one!) unrepeated experiment by a single magazine contributor. Not exactly the height of empirical data.

I've satisfied my own curiosity about the limits of RA4 by doing my own experiments (aka making and examining prints). Nothing controlled or scientific, but I have a ballpark feel for the detail I can get, and 3-5 lp/mm is in that ballpark.* If you don't plan on making C-prints, then by all means, trust the MTF chart over my anecdotal experience (I am after all, just some internet nerd). But if you have any real desire to figure out the limits of RA4 for yourself, I'd encourage you to do your own tests rather than quote that single unrepeated experiment.

If, like Gordon, you come away convinced that C-prints are vastly more detailed than I suggest, that's fine. I mean look at what we're talking about: RA4 resolving power. This is just not the end of the world.

*Where do the numbers come from? I have many scans that exhibit more detail than C-prints made from the same negative. By comparing what details are present at what resolutions, that's what I've come to as an estimation.

paulr

27-Oct-2009, 19:22

Forget skeptics. Scientists perform repeatable experiments. From what I can tell, the high numbers you've quoted come from one (one!) unrepeated experiment by a single magazine contributor. Not exactly the height of empirical data.

I'm not the one who cited the ctein article. I mentioned MTF data that I'd seen in someone's graduate research.

Repeatable doesn't mean oft-repeated. It means repeatable, and and MTF test is just that. More critical to the scientific method is controlling variables. Which an MTF test (and a test like Cteins) both do.

While I have no reason to doubt what you've seen with your eyes, I very much challenge what conclusions can be drawn. Printing photographs gives you neither hard data nor a way to isolate important variables. It's uncontrolled.

I mean look at what we're talking about: RA4 resolving power. This is just not the end of the world.

100% agree.

rugenius

27-Oct-2009, 20:47

The post has transformed from forum question to personal banter.:confused:

Here's my bottom line for those of you who care to examine it::)

1) The output resolution is defined by end use.
IE Magazine, stock photo, press, book, or enlarged reproduction.
In the case of reproduction, obviously resolution of original format is pinnacle.

2) Printer resolution, for what it's worth, is not an "end all".
Example: All 1200 DPI printers are not created equal
But it might be your defining output?

3) The human eye; it can distinguish normally 300 DPI and less.
The majority of people cannot see "much" difference between 300 and 600 DPI images at a distance of 12 inches or more.
Yes, it's sad... but true.
Having said that, the appearance of higher resolution can lend to finer detail and contrast.
But there an extinguishing resolution at which a microscope is necessary to determine smaller features.

4) DLSR... at 15 MP and full frame, or otherwise, you are limited to roughly 4677 pixels by 3118 pixels.
So you do the math,...
A native photo at 1200 DPI printer resolution at native reproduction is only 3.9" x 2.6".
And thus a 20 x 16 inch enlargement is essentially 233 DPI final output.
And by graphics standards,... this is widely used for web, book, and magazine work.
Furthermore, it may be suitable for enlargements viewed from a distance.
DLSR is completely within those operational considerations,... agreed?
However,...
This is not what most large format photographers are trying to achieve!!
Nor medium format for that matter.
Even a scanner is a compromise for that matter....
But that is a necessary instrument for many of us.

In the end,... there is no one here in the forum that can tell the next person that DSLR is replacing LF film to paper media, less film positive/negative media.
That includes even the largest grain because grain is part of what's captured, not pixels or aliasing.
Moreover, a choice to abandon LF photography and use DSLR is merely a statement of work flow, not anything to do with the essence of LF capability or mantreh.
Here's my bad analogy:
Trying to bridge the spectrum between the two is like racing bicycles and dragsters.
They are not the same but they are capable of traveling at the same speed.:D

paulr

27-Oct-2009, 21:37

Got it. Bicycles.

rugenius

27-Oct-2009, 23:35

paulr wrote: " got it bicycles"...

I sense sarcasm, rightly so,...
Just so you don't think the BS is waist high...
I design optics for a living.
I can speak fluently about these subjects.
Also, my wife is a hard core "Bauhaus" originated graphic designer.
Both of us are entirely in tune with realistic use case for all mediums of film and digital photography,... as well as repro-graphic instrumentation and all orders of discipline between.

While my analogy is mediocre, I believe the point is good enough...
Anyone that wants to argue the math simply has to make his case clearly.
What is it you want in the end?

Digital technology will certainly bring film a run for it's money in the next few years... When 3X the lateral resolution happens, most film will be moot at medium and 35mm. People will shift over and film manufacturers will simply stop making film.
But keep in mind,... that's an order of magnitude larger density for the same electron-photon well.
They can only make sensors so large and yet with a finite number of pixels that match the current state of art for sensor component density technology.
Meanwhile,...
Extinguishing resolution wise, a comparison of pro-sumer grade DSLR to LF film at any enlargement beyond 4x5" is simply not on par unless considering lower reproduction resolution.
That doesn't mean the average person can always interpret the details but none the less the differences are more than minutia when enlarged, and even true when presented in 1:1 native image format between film and sensor (enlarged via output device)

It's late, I'm tired,... and if you have a beef with my post
There's always tomorrow...

Cheers.

paulr

28-Oct-2009, 00:02

I sense sarcasm, rightly so,...
Just so you don't think the BS is waist high...

no pointed sarcasm ... just making fun of the thread ... and yes, i know my contributions are worth making fun of too.

rdenney

28-Oct-2009, 11:01

Could I tell the difference between the 16x20 from the cell phone vs 4x5? Obviously, but sharpness-wise, they'll be comparable.

With the incredibly short focal length required for the extremely tiny sensor, I think you'll find that it won't be the number of pixels preventing an acceptable image at 16x20, it will be diffraction.

And then there's the issue of just how many photons will strike a sensor site that is a half a micron wide. You'll be seeing more sensor noise than image information in just about any shadows, I would think.

I'm not even going to the obvious question of how to grind a lens with a 2mm focal length that would have the resolution/acutance/whatever to render details that would appear even remotely sharp at a 250x enlargement.

Whatever the capabilities of RA-4 are or are not (neither know nor care), I think you'd have to smear Vaseline over any current printing technology--a really good thick layer--to achieve the same fuzzy mess that would come from a cell phone at 16x20, even if printed on identical print media. I can tell that by looking at web images from cell phones, let alone a 16x20 print.

I agree that the differences at 16x20 between 24x36 digital and large format might require a side-by-side comparison to be obvious--my own results prove that. But you took a reasonable argument too far.

Rick "reductio ad absurdum doesn't always work" Denney

h2oman

28-Oct-2009, 11:37

This is definitely the place to be if one likes wathching a good brawl!:D

Ben Syverson

28-Oct-2009, 11:53

I agree that the differences at 16x20 between 24x36 digital and large format might require a side-by-side comparison to be obvious--my own results prove that.
This thread has jumped the shark, but this was essentially my point in response to the original question. If you don't need to print beyond 16x20, and if you don't need the movements of a view camera, a good DSLR is all you need. In my opinion, you don't "need" LF to print a really great, incredibly sharp 16x20.

Jim collum

28-Oct-2009, 13:53

This thread has jumped the shark, but this was essentially my point in response to the original question. If you don't need to print beyond 16x20, and if you don't need the movements of a view camera, a good DSLR is all you need. In my opinion, you don't "need" LF to print a really great, incredibly sharp 16x20.

i'm not sure the issue with his statement. he agreed that you don't need LF as you stated (he said "I agree"). His issue (as well as most others), is that there's a sharpness difference between a cell phone and 4x5 at 16x20. i've seen 8mp cell phone images, and at 8x10 you can see the difference in sharpness. i'm pretty sure that the jump to 12Mp and 16x20 isn't going to do anything but make it worse

Ben Syverson

28-Oct-2009, 14:04

Okay, got it -- the cell phone thing is a red herring in this thread anyway.

paulr

28-Oct-2009, 15:37

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

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

Jim Galli

28-Oct-2009, 16:00

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

Some clarifying points -

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

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

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

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

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

Findingmyway4ever

1-Jul-2010, 22:27

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

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

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

Steve Barber

2-Jul-2010, 05:05

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

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

Tom Monego

2-Jul-2010, 05:24

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

Tom

Robert Hughes

2-Jul-2010, 08:55

Put the Duesenberg in the garage for a while.

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

http://mycarblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Duesenberg_Convertible_SJ_LA_Grand_Dual-Cowl_Phaeton_1935-150x150.jpg
Of course, it is expensive and difficult to maintain, and gets terrible gas mileage. But it is a classic.

RK_LFteacher

2-Jul-2010, 09:37

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

Robert Hughes

2-Jul-2010, 11:45

Well, one furthur point: many people using LF do not use the correct F stop and create more diffraction.
... like all those F/64 guys. What were they thinking? :p

rdenney

2-Jul-2010, 12:26

dh003i

2-Jul-2010, 13:44

rdenney

2-Jul-2010, 13:54

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

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

My point was that depth of field is a gross effect, while diffraction is a fine effect. Yes, they do meet in the boundary condition. But one optimizing for diffraction might well create far more fuzziness than they can tolerate because of lack of depth of field.

Rick "whose subjects are rarely flat" Denney

dh003i

2-Jul-2010, 15:04

My point was that depth of field is a gross effect, while diffraction is a fine effect. Yes, they do meet in the boundary condition. But one optimizing for diffraction might well create far more fuzziness than they can tolerate because of lack of depth of field.

Rick "whose subjects are rarely flat" Denney

Oh yea, I agree completely with that. That's why I use the method I referred to above. Even after movements and whatnot, I usually end up around f/32 or f/22, but sometimes approaching f/64.

Richard M. Coda

2-Jul-2010, 18:58

I have been photographing with LF since 1981. I just turned 50, so that's almost two-thirds of my life. Started with 4x5, moved to 8x10 a few years later, and most recently to 11x14. I have also owned a Fuji S2 and now own a Nikon D300. I have to tell you... all that stuff about a DSLR being as good as LF is just bunk. Mostly older guys who find LF inconvenient. There is no way (laws of Physics apply) that a DSLR can match the resolution of LF film. Comes close with 4x5, but anything larger is just not possible. My 11x14 has 100 times the resolution of a D300... and movements!

I will ALWAYS use LF. Know what I use my D300 for? Mostly snapshots and scrapbooking for my wife. Occasionally, some product shots for my graphic design business.

paulr

2-Jul-2010, 19:37

I'm not ready to scrap my 4x5 ... but truly, the only reason I don't have a dslr is expense. The good ones cost more than I've ever paid for a camera. Luckily I don't gravitate toward having a whole arsenal of lenses.

i wish these debates didn't have to become so dogmatic. The whole "another one bites the dust" angle is so silly. It's not like your army has gotten weakened by a defection. Someone's just decided they want to use a different kind of camera than you. Power to them!

As far as which is better, the questions are the same as always when comparing gear. Better for what? A camera with a tiny digital sensor is probably not going to be as good as an 8x10 at producing results that look like an 8x10 camera's. But who says that this is everyone's goal? There are things the dslr will do better, just as there are things a 4x5, a hasselblad, and a minox have always done better.

Brian Ellis

2-Jul-2010, 23:59

AJ Edmondson

3-Jul-2010, 07:53

I moved away from 8x10 about a year ago but I still use 4x5 and, now, a Sony A850 DSLR (about three months) - full-frame, 24M. The DSLR is great for some outings though I still have difficulty considering anything "hand-held" as serious. Truth is I also still have difficulty seeing in color (though obviously digital will do B&W also). It's great to have the option of digital but I don't think I am ready to drop LF for digital alone! Quality of the full-frame, RAW images on the Epson 3880 have not disappointed me in any way but... it isn't silver... and I suppose 50+ years of "silver" does predispose me even if I can't find anything to gripe about!

paulr

3-Jul-2010, 12:40

Not everyone judges a photograph by its resolution ...

And some work will actually be worse if too sharp, grainless, pretty, or polished. I can think of a number of artists whose visions are well served by the grit and grain of 50s and 60s era 35mm film.

JeffKohn

3-Jul-2010, 14:01

I have been photographing with LF since 1981. I just turned 50, so that's almost two-thirds of my life. Started with 4x5, moved to 8x10 a few years later, and most recently to 11x14. I have also owned a Fuji S2 and now own a Nikon D300. I have to tell you... all that stuff about a DSLR being as good as LF is just bunk. Mostly older guys who find LF inconvenient. There is no way (laws of Physics apply) that a DSLR can match the resolution of LF film. Comes close with 4x5, but anything larger is just not possible. My 11x14 has 100 times the resolution of a D300... and movements!

I don't think there is anybody (at least not anybody with credibility) claiming that a DSLR will match 8x10 or 11x14 film for resolution. That's just silly. Now when you start talking about high-end MF digital backs versus 4x5 film, it's not so clear-cut IMHO.

And of course, stitching with digital changes the equation somewhat, but stitching isn't always practical or desirable.

Findingmyway4ever

9-Jul-2010, 15:51

I'm still curious why people fall back to b/w work when discussing digital and analog tools? I shoot primarily color, but I have far better results with film. My computer skills maybe need excelling a few years or something, but I see things with my film images, color wise, that look better than what I can pull out of a digital image. I will say that software technology has come a long long way and it's phenomenal what can be done with digital images that was such a struggle dealing with in the past.

shadowleaves

12-Jul-2010, 19:44

At least Pentax 645D.

Not sure if it is my mood, but suddenly today I started thinking about giving up the 4x5 and buying a DSLR.

So - if you we're to switch to DSLR, what camera would you buy and why?

I shoot mainly landscapes, flora, and am interested in large wall prints up to 16x20.

You can talk me off the ledge if you like!

Marek Warunkiewicz

13-Jul-2010, 03:50

Hi folks!

I have a Canon 5D Mark II as well as an 8x10, 5x7 and 4x5. Great lenses for the digital as well as LF ranging from 1850s Petzvals to Schneiders and Rodenstocks. I rarely find myself shooting digital. It may be "easy" but I find myself not "seeing" as well with it. What I tend to do in digital is find images that I can't make with my LF cameras like panoramas that need to be stitched, pieces that I envision using Pshop to create and then most of these then get printed using very traditional methods like Palladium, Cyanotype etc. I find it very hard to be as rigorous in my "seeing" with digital, that discipline is easy to forgo since I can shoot 800 high rez images on my 32GB card. When I have an LF camera to set up, I do a lot more thinking and looking before setting up and shooting. If I were a sports shooter or animal shooter, then a smaller, faster camera would make sense, but I'm not.

It really is all about (at least for me) subject matter, my personal workflow and end product vision (I try never to shoot without seeing the final result in my mind) and what is possible with what I have at hand. I'm planning a long trip with my wife next spring and summer and have spent endless hours debating what to bring. Can't bring it all and I KNOW she won't put up with me setting up my 8x10 so I might have to compromise with 4x5 or 5x7. We'll see.

tlitody

13-Jul-2010, 05:25

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but I'm considering getting my first digital camera too. NOT with the intention of giving up black and white film photography but for practical commercial reasons. What worries me is that because I will be able to download images directly to PC and view immediately on screen, there might be a tendancy to become lazy about having to process film materials and that is a slippery slope to go down. But then again if film is reserved for personal work then I can conveniently seperate personal work from commercial work.

lilmsmaggie

13-Jul-2010, 09:28

Personally, I'd get a Canon 5D MK II - having said that, don't chuck your LF gear. Just think of the DSLR whichever you wind up choosing as just another tool in your photographic toolkit.

There's room for both ;)

Darin Boville

13-Jul-2010, 11:28

Are we missing (quite literally given the number of landscape photogs here) missing the forest for the trees?

Why simply compare a DSLR to 4x5/8x10? There are many more options available, from cell phones, to scanners (to make original images), to video cameras.

Underneath many of the posts here is assumption that we will continue to photograph the same subjects in the same way seeking identical technical results. Well, of course, in that case nothing will ever substitute for whatever you are using.

Maybe there is something wrong with that assumption.

Underlying other posts is the sense of craft--that LF requires true craftsmanship while DSLR does not. Maybe. But it is worth pointing out that LF is easy to do nowadays compared to how it was just twenty years ago. Board like this one have reduced the learning curve to a fraction of what it used to be and costs have plummeted to the point where LF is less expensive than serious DSLR equipment. Low barriers to entry all around. That reduced mental burden would seem to open up the time, money, and energy to allow a photographer to master not just LF techniques but related fields as well.

--Darin

ki6mf

14-Jul-2010, 04:02

Brian Ellis

14-Jul-2010, 09:45

Do shoot digital, I keep mine fired up for the grand kids running around and for travel photos. I also started working in 20X24 and am thinking about rolls of paper to do larger prints. Digital isn't there yet! I claim it does not save you any time! The time in the dark room is now replaced by time in front of the computer editing and printing.

Yes, the time in the darkroom is now replaced by time in front of the computer editing and printing. But look at the difference in how you're spending that time. What do you actually do when printing in the darkroom? You get things set up, you mix chemicals, you bring them to temperature, you fill the trays, you turn out the lights, you make the exposure, you jiggle the trays - 2 minutes in developer, move to stop bath, 30 seconds in stop bath, move to fix, a minute or more in the fix - turn on the lights, move print to viewing area, squeegee the print, evaluate the print. Then go through that process again to improve the print. And again. And again until you get a final print, then move on to the next one and repeat the process again. And again. And again until your printing session is finished. Then you empty the trays, clean the trays, set the prints out to dry, empty the print washer, put everything up, etc., etc.

Now think about how much of all that time was spent doing anything creative. Almost none of it - maybe 10% at the most was spent dodging, burning, flashing, changing contrasts, and evaluating the print, i.e. using your creativity to make better prints. The rest of the time - 90% or more - was spent doing drudge work, the kind of stuff successful photographers in the old days used to hire darkroom assistants to do.

Now think of printing digitally. Turn on the computer. Open Photoshop. Select the image. Edit, edit, edit, edit, edit until you have a print with which you're satisfied based on what you see on your monitor. Put the paper in the printer, start the printer. Out comes the print. Evaluate it. Edit, edit, edit some more. Reprint. See the difference? Yeah, the time may be the same as if you were in a darkroom but how that time is spent is vastly different. Darkroom = 90% or more drudge time. Digital = 90% or more creative time.

Which of course doesn't mean darkroom work can't be enjoyable or that someone should prefer sitting in front of a computer to doing darkroom work. And it certainly isn't intended to say that better prints can be made digitally (though I happen to think the differences are much smaller than you may think based on your snapshots). Just that while time spent in front of the computer and in the darkroom may be the same, what's being done with that time is vastly different.

cyrus

14-Jul-2010, 14:54

I'd buy a CanonG11 which is technically a point-and-shot and not a dSLR, but it shoots RAW, is light, and has practically all the benefits of a DSLR but at a fraction of the cost and weight.

Brian C. Miller

15-Jul-2010, 10:19

Here's what I don't like with digital: at its core, it's just a blob. A square. At film's core, it's a tiny flake, floating alone.

Rotate them. The digital line becomes jagged. The film's line stays true.

Enlarge them. The digital blob becomes jagged. The film's silver flake becomes visible, and beautiful all on its own.

What attracts me to 1/2 frame? It is both soft and sharp. What attracts me to large format? Detail. Supreme detail.

What attracts me to digital? Convenience, and nothing else.

How often do I use my digital camera? Rarely. If I want fast hand-held quality, I have medium format. 40-inch enlargement? Max it out for my 645 and Kodak, and 16x20 is just getting started with 4x5.

But really, what is the point of using any camera? We make an image, we convey an idea. What does the tool we use allow us to do? "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." The same goes for photography. What good is a 4x5 negative if it's only enlarged to 8x10? What good is a camera with movements if "swing" is only a dance step, and "tilt" is only on a pinball machine?

Think about your ideas, and then think about how you want to convey them.

Andrew O'Neill

15-Jul-2010, 10:22

Well said, Brian. Well said.

Brian C. Miller

15-Jul-2010, 11:09

At least Pentax 645D.

I checked it out (Pentax Japan online store (http://shop.pentax.jp/shop/category/category.aspx?category=100503)) and at the current exchange rate that camera (with lens) is nearly $11,000.

I want to buy a camera, not a car.

philipmorg

15-Jul-2010, 18:56

Now think of printing digitally. Turn on the computer. Open Photoshop. Select the image. Edit, edit, edit, edit, edit until you have a print with which you're satisfied based on what you see on your monitor. Put the paper in the printer, start the printer. Out comes the print. Evaluate it. Edit, edit, edit some more. Reprint. See the difference? Yeah, the time may be the same as if you were in a darkroom but how that time is spent is vastly different. Darkroom = 90% or more drudge time. Digital = 90% or more creative time.

I don't print digital photographs, so I'm not speaking from personal experience here, but my understanding is that getting a perfect print from a digital file can be quite laborious! No less fastidious a worker than Ctein recently had the following to say about digital printing paper:

I've just finished printing up a bunch of "art quality" 11 x 14 prints for my Contributors, and I'm so frustrated I feel like tearing my hair out. (Yes, I have plenty to spare. What's your point?) The amount of time and money I waste because of shoddy inkjet paper manufacturing practices is appalling.

The full article is here: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/04/theyre-selling-us-crap-paper.html

Digital image making and printing offer many advantages, but it appears that there are drawbacks as well. And those drawbacks, at least for those who want to create an absolutely fine print, are just as annoying in the digital world as they are in the traditional world. I haven't even mentioned the frustration many digital workers experience with computer, printer, and software upgrades and compatibility issues...

My point is that for casual work, the distribution of time between creative effort and technical effort looks a lot like Brian Ellis depicts in his post, and not co-incidentally, it looks a lot like digital equipment marketing depicts it. All creativity, little or no effort! But when you start striving to make exceptional work, the distribution of time between creative and technical effort changes, and digital loses some of its advantages over traditional methods. IMHO. :-)

Drew Wiley

15-Jul-2010, 20:11

Just got in from the dkrm - relaxing there, even if just simple film work. Quiet, with no cell phones or other obnoxious adolescent gadgets. So now I'm momentarily back to the computer, back to eyestrain, backstrain, boredom, just like work. Not much tactile experience, except carpal tunnel syndrome. Hopefully mankind will evolve past the computer era soon, or else we'll all have about 90% of our body weight in our asses.

Brian Ellis

16-Jul-2010, 08:25

I don't print digital photographs, so I'm not speaking from personal experience here, but my understanding is that getting a perfect print from a digital file can be quite laborious! No less fastidious a worker than Ctein recently had the following to say about digital printing paper:

The full article is here: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/04/theyre-selling-us-crap-paper.html

Digital image making and printing offer many advantages, but it appears that there are drawbacks as well. And those drawbacks, at least for those who want to create an absolutely fine print, are just as annoying in the digital world as they are in the traditional world. I haven't even mentioned the frustration many digital workers experience with computer, printer, and software upgrades and compatibility issues...

My point is that for casual work, the distribution of time between creative effort and technical effort looks a lot like Brian Ellis depicts in his post, and not co-incidentally, it looks a lot like digital equipment marketing depicts it. All creativity, little or no effort! But when you start striving to make exceptional work, the distribution of time between creative and technical effort changes, and digital loses some of its advantages over traditional methods. IMHO. :-)

Oh I absolutely didn't say that printing digitally requires no effort. Quite the opposite - between learning and continuing to learn how to do it to one's satisfaction and then actually doing the work, it requires a massive amount of effort (at least it has for me). But the effort involved in actually making a fine digital print is of a different kind - and for me a much more satisfying kind - than the physical effort that takes up most of one's time in a darkroom.

Otherwise I agree with what you say. Between equipment occasionally malfunctioning for no apparent reason and software upgrades, digital printing has its own set of frustrations. But I was addressing only what goes into actually making a print in a darkroom vs making a print digitally, not peripheral frustrations (some of which of course are also present in a darkroom).

philipmorg

16-Jul-2010, 09:54

Oh I absolutely didn't say that printing digitally requires no effort. Quite the opposite - between learning and continuing to learn how to do it to one's satisfaction and then actually doing the work, it requires a massive amount of effort (at least it has for me). But the effort involved in actually making a fine digital print is of a different kind - and for me a much more satisfying kind - than the physical effort that takes up most of one's time in a darkroom.

Thanks for the clarification Brian. I understand your point better now.

Robert Hughes

16-Jul-2010, 12:00

What good is a 4x5 negative if it's only enlarged to 8x10?

Huh? :confused: Do you have something against 8x10 prints?

Brian C. Miller

16-Jul-2010, 15:23

Huh? :confused: Do you have something against 8x10 prints?

Oh no, not at all. I simply consider not using movements and only making enlargements to 8x10 a bit of an exercise in photographic masochism. Really, if a smaller format is OK for the detail you want, why not use it?

I think that large format photography only gets started at 16x20. Why? Well, once upon a time I was mucking about with my Super Graphic after I had adjusted the GG, and I was trying to figure out how much detail I could see on Techpan. So I set up my camera, and snapped a picture. Well, using a 22x loupe I could see bicycle spokes about two blocks away. Clearly! Then I started enlarging the image. When the enlargement was at 16x20, I could see the spokes.

So: what's the point of throwing away all that wonderful detail in an image? It surely doesn't show up at 8x10. And if the camera is only used as a box camera, what is the point of lugging a beastly view camera around? Sure, some may enjoy the masochism factor. I do it because of what the view camera enables me to do.

I don't remember Jack mentioning what he can afford for digital equipment. A new Mamiya DM-22 back (usable with a 4x5 camera) runs $8,000 new. I'm guessing that what Jack is really asking is, should he ditch LF for cheap 35mm digital SLR? Otherwise he'd just snag a digital back and be happy.

So: if the max print size is 8x10, why bother?

antinapple

17-Jul-2010, 00:42

I personally want to make huge prints so no digital solution can compete with big analog film. However, if making a statement without the desire or need to make huge prints then I say go for it.

dh003i

18-Jul-2010, 07:30

I think smaller LF prints still have more tonality, right?

Brian C. Miller

19-Jul-2010, 11:59

But more tonality than what? And at what enlargement?

I'm not one who has a real opinion about tonality. Though Mamiya has (or had) a blurb on their website about the advantages of MF for tonality, I really think that tonality is usually confused with grain.

A while back I decided to do a little experiment between LF and 35mm. Outside my window (before an empty lot was developed) I could see buildings with brick walls, one and two blocks away. On the light table under 22x loupe, the comparison was a f***ing joke, 135mm Optar Wollensack beating Nikkor 50mm. Duh. But for an 8x10 enlargement, from normal viewing distance, there really wasn't that much of a difference. What I mean is, from a casual glance, could an average person tell the prints apart? No, not without trying to sniff the print. Of course with a 16x20 enlargement the difference was tremendous. The LF print showed bicycle spokes in the window at two blocks away, individual bricks in the wall at one block and two blocks, yadda yadda yadda. The 35mm print showed that there was a wall, but no detail in it.

Now, as for "tones," I think that has to do with printing technique. If the same film is used in both cameras, and a grey-scale test target verifies similar densiometer readings, then "tonality" is the same. The remaining factor is the film's grain. How does the grain hold together? If, at 8x10, there is no discernable grain, then there really isn't a difference between 35mm and 4x5. It's like saying that there is a difference between a coated and uncoated lens: given identical negatives (i.e., identical after processing), does it matter which one you use?

A lot of good photography has been done with 35mm film. I think that a lot of good photography will be done with 35mm-size digital cameras. Do the top-of-the-line 35mm-size digital cameras hold a candlelight to 645 MF? Not in my book. Yes, they are good, but there is also a good reason why Hasselblad, Mamiya, and now Pentax are selling 40Mp+ equipment.

Now, let's take a look at when something goes wrong. When I first got my Super Graphic, it didn't have the original ground glass in it. The replacement GG was not registered properly, so the resulting image was slightly out of focus. I photographed a catenary crane with both my Graphlex and Pentax 645. Then I scanned both of them at home. Guess which format still won? Yep, 4x5, even being out of focus. I could sharpen the 4x5 image until warning signs on the crane were legible. The 645, while tack sharp, just didn't have the information resident in the image, so the signs were never legible. But of course, the signs aren't readable in an 8x10 print.

Size matters when size does matter. But if the final print is "small" then size doesn't matter.