the digital vs film debate

[don mills]

haven't seen much about this online since the luminous landscape review by charles cramer (former sheet film artist) several years ago between drum scanned 4x5 velvia and 39megapixel digital back.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

as a large format film photographer, i'm curious if anyone has read any reviews which are more recent on this topic. i think there are many problems with the luminous landscape review, the biggest issue being a comparison test via the internet where screen resolution is approx 72dpi. not to mention i've been to a gallery with cramer's prints from both digital back and large format film and have to say the digital prints look flat and plasticized compared with the film prints which feel more lively.

whatever the case, i'd be curious about any thoughts, or more recent online topics or studies, on this matter. my own conclusion is that digital backs produce images akin to the site: www.digitalblasphemy.com :-)

and of course i have no interest that sort of artificiality.

cheers. dm

ps. an interesting fbi research article concluding that the megapixel equivalent of 35mm film is in the ballpark of 16mp:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm

[Dave Jeffery]

Here are two long threads and someone will post a picture of a horse soon.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=44093&highlight=resolution+graphs

You might look at these graphs first

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=45186

[Kirk Gittings]

I have a great deal of respect for the technical mastery of Charlers Cramer and am willing to accept his own opinion about his work. You should contact him and tell him what you think about his digital work and see what he says. In the meantime as requested:

http://48pixels.com/images/deadhorse.gif

[Drew Wiley]

Anything film vs digital should be predicated by thorough homework involving viewing
old Three Stooges movies with pie-fights. I don't mind throwing a pie myself from time
to time, but have to anticipate ducking one in the reverse direction!

[Ron Marshall]

Film vs digital belongs in the Lounge.

[David Luttmann]

Thanks Kirk. I was looking for that.

[Marko]

Film vs digital belongs in the Lounge.

Barely. I really wouldn't mind if it joined Religion and Politics. It certainly combines the "best" of both those worlds... ;)

[Daniel Stone]

I was up in Yosemite last month for a workshop, and went to dinner(at the gracious invite from Jim G.), and while dining, we enjoyed the artwork adorning the walls of the restaurant, many of which were from Charles Cramer.

While we were there, I was thinking "this looks TOO GOOD to be digital, even P65+(60mp) digital). Upon leaving after enjoying our meal, I asked one of the waiters who was cleaning up if he knew if the work was from digital or not(just a shot in the dark, I know :p), but he said that most of it was from film. Many of the shots were 5-10yrs old, or older.

I'm not one to speculate, but a person like Charles Cramer, who has shot sheet film for years(in 4x5 I know for sure, not sure if in 8x10), but is definitely a "in the know" guy about what can really be extracted from a LF chrome, either via dye-transfer, or drum scanning and output via lightjet.

But I know that the P45+ and P65+(along with other comparable backs from other manufacturer's) are capable of tremendous detail, and large dynamic range. In 1 shot too. Many of the people here in LA that I've assisted for are constant users of MFD, and they only use such because of the "film-look" vs 35mm digital.

but in the end, I don't really give a rat's @$$ if a photograph is made via digital or analog means. The vision of the artist is what counts, as I would hope someone viewing my work would see it.

But you can also argue that shooting MFD with the most whiz-bang equipment, and outputting those large files to a lightjet, or LF inkjet printer, is definitely capable of producing outstanding results. And it can save your back too :). Lugging a Master Technika or other LF camera around for hours, or days at a time, can be back-breaking. Carrying a kit of 30gb of memory cards that allows you a few hundred shots can be much lighter than having to cart around holders, changing tent, and other camping supplies(if you backpack away from the car overnight).

And he ain't a spring chicken anymore age-wise, remember that ;).

-Dan

[ret wisner]

digital is just a little damaging on the wallet, the moths would just have to take a hike and make room for cash in my wallet

oh well i will just stick with film i guess

but hey who said that fibre/darkroom printing was all that interesting anyways, give me a hand coated print from a glass plate any day, in fact i rarely look at regular prints when i see them anyways, if i have to ask whether its digital or film then whats the point.

i can allways spot a hand coated print, even at a good distance, especially a glass plate print

[Renato Tonelli]

I pity the poor horse.

Kirk - can you stop that guy from beating that poor horse?

[Chris Strobel]

I could never afford the P65+ myself, but I'm curious is it the fact that they are 60mp that makes them so great?What if you stitch say 4-6 frames from a Canon 5DmkII with a good lens, are you then going to be matching a one shot image from a P65+ given identical subject and lighting?I went to the Rodney Lough Jr. Gallery a couple months ago, there were 5 prints he shot with the P65+, the rest all 8x10 and either Astia or Velvia, I personally could not tell which was which in these uber large prints.

[rdenney]

I pity the poor horse.

Kirk - can you stop that guy from beating that poor horse?

The horse is beyond caring.

Rick "with the horse, and everyone else who looks at photographs, except (some) photographers" Denney

[don mills]

daniel, why do you prefer film for your own work?



I was up in Yosemite last month for a workshop, and went to dinner(at the gracious invite from Jim G.), and while dining, we enjoyed the artwork adorning the walls of the restaurant, many of which were from Charles Cramer.

While we were there, I was thinking "this looks TOO GOOD to be digital, even P65+(60mp) digital). Upon leaving after enjoying our meal, I asked one of the waiters who was cleaning up if he knew if the work was from digital or not(just a shot in the dark, I know :p), but he said that most of it was from film. Many of the shots were 5-10yrs old, or older.

I'm not one to speculate, but a person like Charles Cramer, who has shot sheet film for years(in 4x5 I know for sure, not sure if in 8x10), but is definitely a "in the know" guy about what can really be extracted from a LF chrome, either via dye-transfer, or drum scanning and output via lightjet.

But I know that the P45+ and P65+(along with other comparable backs from other manufacturer's) are capable of tremendous detail, and large dynamic range. In 1 shot too. Many of the people here in LA that I've assisted for are constant users of MFD, and they only use such because of the "film-look" vs 35mm digital.

but in the end, I don't really give a rat's @$$ if a photograph is made via digital or analog means. The vision of the artist is what counts, as I would hope someone viewing my work would see it.

But you can also argue that shooting MFD with the most whiz-bang equipment, and outputting those large files to a lightjet, or LF inkjet printer, is definitely capable of producing outstanding results. And it can save your back too :). Lugging a Master Technika or other LF camera around for hours, or days at a time, can be back-breaking. Carrying a kit of 30gb of memory cards that allows you a few hundred shots can be much lighter than having to cart around holders, changing tent, and other camping supplies(if you backpack away from the car overnight).

And he ain't a spring chicken anymore age-wise, remember that ;).

-Dan

[dsim]

I went to the Rodney Lough Jr. Gallery a couple months ago, there were 5 prints he shot with the P65+, the rest all 8x10 and either Astia or Velvia, I personally could not tell which was which in these uber large prints.

Each were comprised of 5 portrait shots which were stitched. The photographer felt the 8x10 prints displayed more detail and better tonality.

[Chris Strobel]

Each were comprised of 5 portrait shots which were stitched. The photographer felt the 8x10 prints displayed more detail and better tonality.

You mean Rodney shot 5 captures per image with the camera in vertical orientation, then stitched?How'd you find that out?The people he had working in the pier 39 gallery were pretty clueless it seemed when asked technical questions about the photos.

[dsim]

Someone visited the gallery and talked to Rodney about it. I read it a while ago.

[dsim]

Here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/862403) is the link Chris.

[Brian Ellis]

So his 12x enlargements from an 8x10 negative have greater detail and better tonality than his digital prints from a P65? That's certainly surprising. I've never enlarged any film even to 10x and been happy with the detail or the tonality. Of course my 10x enlargements have mostly been been 35mm and a few 6x7s, not 8x10, and it's been b&w negative film, not color slide film, but I still find it very surprising. Rodney and a lot of other people have sure peed away a lot of money on those P65s.

[Steve M Hostetter]

you guys are about as likely to buy a Mars land rover then to buy a 40,000.00 digital back.. I think the adapter to hook one to a LF cam is only 2200.00,, not to mention all new lenses for the venture..
just stick with LF and keep haggling and bitching about paying over 300.00 for a normal lens for your broken down 8x10" kodak cameras..:D

[Marko]

you guys are about as likely to buy a Mars land rover then to buy a 40,000.00 digital back.. I think the adapter to hook one to a LF cam is only 2200.00,, not to mention all new lenses for the venture..
just stick with LF and keep haggling and bitching about paying over 300.00 for a normal lens for your broken down 8x10" kodak cameras..:D

:D

Isn't it funny how none of those trashing digital backs can actually afford one?

You'd think anybody smart enough to earn that sort of money wouldn't be stupid enough to actually buy those backs unless there just was something about them not readily obvious to the peanut gallery... ;)

[don mills]

its about efficiency, period.

[Chris Strobel]

but I still find it very surprising. Rodney and a lot of other people have sure peed away a lot of money on those P65s.

Rodney spent nothing for his P65+ according to the Pier 39 gallery management, he was given the camera on loan by Phase One for six months.The subject matter was different in the prints I saw, but I can't say one looked sharper than the other, and I was wearing my +1.75 readers the whole time.There WAS a visible difference with the prints made from 4x5 though.

[Gordon Moat]

:D

Isn't it funny how none of those trashing digital backs can actually afford one?

You'd think anybody smart enough to earn that sort of money wouldn't be stupid enough to actually buy those backs unless there just was something about them not readily obvious to the peanut gallery... ;)

Actually, I know people who can afford them, and do "trash" them. I can afford one, though I only rent on rare occasions, but then again I don't "trash" them. Honestly, nearly anyone involved in photography could simply rent one, and then see first hand what all the fuss is about.

I think the bigger issue, as discussed here several years ago, is that endeavors in fine art photography seem to eat up vast sums of money even for the most notable out there. So a bigger issue for the art photographers is that when some are already operating at negative cash flow, then why throw more money at it ... basically the poorest of business choices.

I am happy to be involved in commercial photography, though I do exhibit some of my images in galleries. Maybe I do not enjoy the name recognition and notoriety of someone in the art photographer crowd, but then again I am not trying to sell over-priced workshops to the wannabes.
:D :cool:

[Marko]

I think the bigger issue, as discussed here several years ago, is that endeavors in fine art photography seem to eat up vast sums of money even for the most notable out there. So a bigger issue for the art photographers is that when some are already operating at negative cash flow, then why throw more money at it ... basically the poorest of business choices.

All true, but in the context of this particular topic, the biggest issue - and the most futile one from the business perspective - is the tendency by some of those affected to blame the tools for their poor business choices. Other people's choice of tools in particular.

Fighting the future has never really done much, if anything, to preserve the past. These kinds of "debates" won't do much either, except maybe make the participants look silly.

[don mills]

please, don't be snooty. no one is blaming tools. and the comment "these kinds of debates won't do much, except maybe make the participants look silly" is the only silly post i've read so far on this thread. i've read some very interesting posts on this topic at luminous landscape, here and other places and always enjoy hearing people's experiences and preferences. this isn't a dated topic. my students, not to mention most artists who use the camera, are very interested in the differences in look and feel of film vs digital. and of course many, including myself, cross back and forth continually between these processes.

for commercial work i use a p45+ and am very happy with it. the time it saves vs my old film workflow (8 years ago) is the single most important reason i switched. but for personal work, i prefer the colors, tonality, grain variance of sheet film, particularly in prints enlarged beyond 30x40. i recently took several shots of the same image from the same POV with my phase one (with mamiya lens), old deardorff 8x10 and a junky 4x5 (using very old dagor lenses). it required several hours to pick between and modify the p45+ files prior to printing and over a week to develop, drum scan and spot the negatives but the end prints (both color and bw versions) from film had a tactile feel to them that i cannot obtain from digital back files (and i'm good with PS). originally i planned to upload these but very quickly i realized that the end print differences i'm referencing really should only be seen in person. so, if you have the time, rent a p45+ and compare it with your film process. try printing at ~40x50 inches and remember to use unsharp mask for the film scans. you may also want to toy with white and black point, depending on your printer profile.

like many of you, i've seen rodney lough jr's work and talked with him several times about his process...most recently at his san francisco gallery. given the fact he is such a good printer i am always amazed to look at prints from both digital and film. and, as rodney attests, the prints from film are clearly more beautiful.

the thing that keeps me coming back to digital is the efficiency of the process and the incredibly clean files. in 15 minutes, i can take several portrait shots, upload to my computer, make minor changes and have them sent to the epson. bang. nothing like that with film is possible!

cheers. dm


All true, but in the context of this particular topic, the biggest issue - and the most futile one from the business perspective - is the tendency by some of those affected to blame the tools for their poor business choices. Other people's choice of tools in particular.

Fighting the future has never really done much, if anything, to preserve the past. These kinds of "debates" won't do much either, except maybe make the participants look silly.

[Ben Syverson]

I'm looking forward to the time when I can get a 400 megapixel 8x10" back for my view camera for under $5000.

Until then, I'll keep shooting film. It still has the edge.

[Robert Hughes]

I like digital because it almost always turns out just fine.
I like film because there's still an element of chance to it. And I like the smell of chemicals.

[don mills]

if sensor real estate is only what matters for you, you might try one of the newer betterlight scanning backs which work well for "still" subject matter. maybe you have? i agree it would be nice to have a 400mp "fast" scanning back. speaking about film, have you ever tried gigabit film? rich, fat files can be obtained from 35mm when scanned properly.

i'm convinced the 39 megapixel mark about equates to the "sensor area" of 4x5 film, considering the way in which epson large format printers automatically adjust resolution in-printer. i have a friend who feels his p65+ is very close to 8x10, in the same terms.

what i'm referencing, which is why i'll likely never use digital for my personal work, are the other qualities of film which i find more compelling (grain structure, the way the depth of the negative yields fantastic smoothness). even 35mm film, at large apertures, exhibits this. for example, check out edward burtynsky's works in person. large 5+ feet wide prints from 4x5 color negative film. get close and you can barely make out the grain in the out of focus areas. stunningly gorgeous c-prints.




I'm looking forward to the time when I can get a 400 megapixel 8x10" back for my view camera for under $5000.

Until then, I'll keep shooting film. It still has the edge.

[Marko]

please, don't be snooty. no one is blaming tools. and the comment "these kinds of debates won't do much, except maybe make the participants look silly" is the only silly post i've read so far on this thread. i've read some very interesting posts on this topic at luminous landscape, here and other places and always enjoy hearing people's experiences and preferences. this isn't a dated topic. my students, not to mention most artists who use the camera, are very interested in the differences in look and feel of film vs digital. and of course many, including myself, cross back and forth continually between these processes.

Well, we all have our opinions, I suppose... ;)

[Brian Ellis]

Rodney spent nothing for his P65+ according to the Pier 39 gallery management, he was given the camera on loan by Phase One for six months.The subject matter was different in the prints I saw, but I can't say one looked sharper than the other, and I was wearing my +1.75 readers the whole time.There WAS a visible difference with the prints made from 4x5 though.

I was being facetious when I mentioned peeing away a lot of money on P65s, I have no way of knowing how Rodney or anyone else acquired them.

[Ben Syverson]

If someone feels a P65 can replace 8x10 for their work, more power to them. But the P65 does not meet my image quality criteria. I can see why it's useful and who the market is, but it's not me. I have tons of time, not much money, and I'm picky. LF film is a perfect fit for me.

It's interesting you should bring up Burtynsky... I have always felt he and a few others print 4x5 way too large. The prints don't hold up... There's a feeling of "it's LF, so it can be enlarged forever." I'm sure he has his reasons, but to me it seems like such a waste to not shoot 8x10 after going through all the trouble he goes through.

[Robert Hughes]

But the P65 does not meet my image quality criteria.
Well, it is just an MF back. It's just the world's highest resolution digital back for medium format cameras. It likely beats the pants off most drum-scanned 4x5's. How could it measure up? :rolleyes:

[don mills]

burtynksy mainly has been shooting quickloads since 1998. i think given the particular circumstances under which he shoots 8x10 wouldn't really work.

what do you mean by "the prints don't hold up?" 10x enlargement for drum scanned 4x5 film isn't much of a stretch. i happen to know burtynksy likes the fact that the grain is just visible at this size.



If someone feels a P65 can replace 8x10 for their work, more power to them. But the P65 does not meet my image quality criteria. I can see why it's useful and who the market is, but it's not me. I have tons of time, not much money, and I'm picky. LF film is a perfect fit for me.

It's interesting you should bring up Burtynsky... I have always felt he and a few others print 4x5 way too large. The prints don't hold up... There's a feeling of "it's LF, so it can be enlarged forever." I'm sure he has his reasons, but to me it seems like such a waste to not shoot 8x10 after going through all the trouble he goes through.

[Ben Syverson]

Well, it is just an MF back. It's just the world's highest resolution digital back for medium format cameras. It likely beats the pants off most drum-scanned 4x5's. How could it measure up? :rolleyes:
Robert, I would love to see that comparison (drum scanned 4x5 vs P65+)! Right after that we can do the same test with 8x10, which is what I shoot.


what do you mean by "the prints don't hold up?" 10x enlargement for drum scanned 4x5 film isn't much of a stretch. i happen to know burtynksy likes the fact that the grain is just visible at this size.
Just because he's okay with the end product doesn't mean I have to be. I think his prints look good, but with 8x10 they could look incredible...

[Ron Marshall]

How many angels can dance on a pixel?

[Ben Syverson]

How many angels can dance on a pixel?
1024 of course!!

[Daniel Stone]

daniel, why do you prefer film for your own work?

Don,

I just like the process. And also, I can afford to shoot film, even 8x10(just barely ;)). I can't see myself spending $40k on a digital back RIGHT NOW. I'm a photo major(I'm 22, and in school right now), so down the road(since commercial work is my eventual goal) I'll probably need to invest in a back. But for now, shooting film gives me something that I just can't get out of digital.

IDK, maybe I'm just paranoid, and even having grown up with computers, and being quite proficient at using them(along with PS), I hate sitting at them for extended periods of time. And personally, I'd rather be making photographs than reviewing the screen on the back of the camera.

there are plug-ins for plug-ins for digital to mimic the "film look", but I just have to ask "why not shoot film for the "film look"?"

In the end, I find that having an idea for a photograph, and then choosing the right materials to empower that vision to the final print is what keeps me coming back to film every time.

and you get a hard copy every time ;), those negs/chromes are a nice backup to scans and easily lost computer files.

-Dan

[Daniel Stone]

daniel, why do you prefer film for your own work?

don,

another reason why I prefer film is this:

the equipment is CHEAP!!!! I was over at Samy's the other day(my former employer btw), and for shi+s and giggles(since they were slow then), I priced out a P65+ kit as follows:

p65+ back w/ extended warranty: $40,000
Arca Swiss RL3D(can use 4x5 film as well) : $6,000
(5) Rodenstock lenses(23mm-150mm) $23,000
new "carbon fiber" tripod(gotta have this ;)) $750
arca swiss geared head $1800
Mac Pro w/ 8 cores, 16gb ram, 2tb hd space $8000
(2) Eizo 24" LCD monitors $5000
Leica Disto Rangefinder $800

total(before CA sales tax mind you :D) ~$85,000+

so, things add up fast from what I can see, most of these prices were discounted about 5-8% from standard selling price, so that cut off a little bit :o.

total cost of my film equipment(35mm-8x10), including darkroom equipment too:

less than $4k total. film costs are another matter ;).

-Dan

[Marko]

And personally, I'd rather be making photographs than reviewing the screen on the back of the camera.

there are plug-ins for plug-ins for digital to mimic the "film look", but I just have to ask "why not shoot film for the "film look"?"


Daniel,

How is reviewing the camera screen any worse than reviewing the light meter screen?

Or along the same lines, why is spending time sitting at the computer worse than spending time in a dark, stinky room sloshing toxic chemicals around and dealing with all the resulting mess? Which is one of my main two reasons for doing it.

Those plugins you mention are made for Photoshop, not for digital cameras. They mimic the "darkroom look", not the "film look" and they don't distinguish between a native digital capture and a film scan, as long as the image is in the computer.

Personally, I am happy to shoot both film and digital. I am even happier for being able to replace a darkroom with a computer.

Marko

[Daniel Stone]

Marko,

what I was referring to was the "digital" mentality of taking photographs these days. Most people(even pro's) I've seen miss great photographs because they were reviewing the pictures taken while something happened in front of them. Now, if you're shooting rocks and things that aren't moving, that's another matter. But if you shoot fashion, or people(both generally have movement ;), and people have expression), missing those photographs can cost a photographer some potentially valuable images.

I know plug-ins are for PS, and a film scan can be manipulated just like a digital camera's file, I'm not dumb.

What I was referring to was why I(at the questioning of Don) shoot film for my work. Its not really the post-processing(film processing, printing, or scanning) that gets me off, its just the whole process in general.

I'm glad to hear that you're having great experiences with the digital darkroom, all the more power to you. Glad you could find something that works for you.

-Dan

[E. von Hoegh]

Film vs digital is like vinyl vs CD. Personally, I prefer vinyl and film.

However, I like CDs in the car, and digital for utility photos.

Just my zwei pfennigs.

[Marko]

Marko,

what I was referring to was the "digital" mentality of taking photographs these days. Most people(even pro's) I've seen miss great photographs because they were reviewing the pictures taken while something happened in front of them. Now, if you're shooting rocks and things that aren't moving, that's another matter. But if you shoot fashion, or people(both generally have movement ;), and people have expression), missing those photographs can cost a photographer some potentially valuable images.

I know plug-ins are for PS, and a film scan can be manipulated just like a digital camera's file, I'm not dumb.

What I was referring to was why I(at the questioning of Don) shoot film for my work. Its not really the post-processing(film processing, printing, or scanning) that gets me off, its just the whole process in general.

Daniel,

Sorry if I misunderstood your comments. I think I have a fairly good idea about what you know and I definitely do not consider you dumb. Let's not take things personally here, shall we?

I don't know about you, but I do not use my LCD screen to review my "take", at least not while shooting. Nor does anybody else I know, or certainly not "most". I use it to evaluate the histogram, just like I always look at my light meter's screen when I measure the light the old-fashioned way.

I've never seen that "digital mentality" you are talking about except maybe with total newbies fascinated with new cameras. And I've certainly never seen a total newbie shoot fashion or sports...

As for the other thing, when you said "there are plug-ins for plug-ins for digital to mimic the "film look", but I just have to ask "why not shoot film for the "film look"?"", I guess I took it literally and explained why not from my perspective, at least when it comes to processing.


'm glad to hear that you're having great experiences with the digital darkroom, all the more power to you. Glad you could find something that works for you.

You know, I've been doing the old fashioned film and darkroom since about twenty years or so before you were born - I think I've earned the right to get bored with it, sick of it or to decide at some point that all that space was more valuable to my family than to my hobby. Who knows, in time you may get to the same or similar point.

I'm also glad that you found something that "gets you off", as you put it. That's great, because it means there's something for everybody, no need for put downs, pissing matches and such. :cool:

[Ben Syverson]

Film definitely forces me to spend much more time on the computer vs digital. With digital, I download the image, tweak it for 5 minutes, and I'm done. With film, I need to color correct in the scanning software, scan the image, color correct again, then spend an hour or so removing dust.

That's why I would be happy to ditch film the very minute they make a digital camera with the detail and tonality of 8x10 film. But that will take 10-20 years, so in the meantime I'm stuck dustbusting.

[David Luttmann]

Hmmm....all the talk of $30,000 and $40,000 is a little out of date for the 40-50mp backs. Just pick up a 40mp Pentax 645D for about $9000 or so with a lens....and unless you want to print above 40" on a regular basis, it probably would fit most peoples needs for resltuion and dynamic range. Not an 8x10 mind you....but considering most here probably don't do much beyond a 24x30....it woun't matter much.

The prices have come down a lot....you don't need to spend $40,000 any more.

[Marko]

Hmmm....all the talk of $30,000 and $40,000 is a little out of date for the 40-50mp backs. Just pick up a 40mp Pentax 645D for about $9000 or so with a lens....and unless you want to print above 40" on a regular basis, it probably would fit most peoples needs for resltuion and dynamic range. Not an 8x10 mind you....but considering most here probably don't do much beyond a 24x30....it woun't matter much.

The prices have come down a lot....you don't need to spend $40,000 any more.

Of course, but it's a card that makes such a nice thud when slammed down on the table, who cares about facts?

Ditto for many other "arguments" such as "machine gunning", "chimping", "manipulation" and such...

It's not like these kinds of "debates" are about facts anyway, not even close. :D

P.S.

$9000 is about the same price the first Canon 1Ds cost a few years back. Some 5 or 6 years or so. That was the 12 MP one. Today, you can have an 18 MP Canon for less than $800.

The trend is a bit slower these days, but it's still there. It'll be interesting to see where it will be in another 10 years or so...

[don mills]

i don't have a problem with it, but it is interesting how this thread seems to be evolving into a discussion on the cost/availability of technology as well as perceived ideals regarding resolution and dynamic range, which IMHO have little to do with the film/digital debate in the context of art photography (i've been under the impression that most at LFP, like artists, are driven primarily by the look, feel and artistic process that film affords than by the intrigue of short-cycled digital gadgetry of whose markets are entirely focused on efficiency and economy at scale.

oops, i didn't mean for that last part to sound so negative. in actuality, i'm a big proponent of melding digital with analog (the drum scanner was an excellent, relevant invention) so feel free to disregard the tone of my cynical and often contradictory statements!

i do find it a bit disconcerting, however, when there seems to be an underlying negativity towards this sort of ontologically based (not technology driven!) discussion within a forum whose founders, namely QT, advocate traditional, alternative photographic processes.

cheers, dm



Hmmm....all the talk of $30,000 and $40,000 is a little out of date for the 40-50mp backs. Just pick up a 40mp Pentax 645D for about $9000 or so with a lens....and unless you want to print above 40" on a regular basis, it probably would fit most peoples needs for resltuion and dynamic range. Not an 8x10 mind you....but considering most here probably don't do much beyond a 24x30....it woun't matter much.

The prices have come down a lot....you don't need to spend $40,000 any more.

[gnuyork]

I could never afford the P65+ myself, but I'm curious is it the fact that they are 60mp that makes them so great?What if you stitch say 4-6 frames from a Canon 5DmkII with a good lens, are you then going to be matching a one shot image from a P65+ given identical subject and lighting?I went to the Rodney Lough Jr. Gallery a couple months ago, there were 5 prints he shot with the P65+, the rest all 8x10 and either Astia or Velvia, I personally could not tell which was which in these uber large prints.

I saw the Lough gallery in Vegas (twice). I could see the difference (even before I read the description of what was used).

[Chris Strobel]

I saw the Lough gallery in Vegas (twice). I could see the difference (even before I read the description of what was used).

You have better eyes than mine.I swear you could have put a gun to my head and said pick the film and pick the digi back and I would be dead :eek: Also that super wide Alaska shot with the red foliage was printed too big imho.

[gnuyork]

I think due to the fact both were present made it possible for me to see the difference in the tonality and "punch". But if they were all from the digital camera I don't think I would say "hey - those are digital..." but since the majority of it was 8x10 chromes, I felt they were better than the few digital images he had there. And to me it wasn't just about the detail, but the overall all feel and tonality of the print from the 8x10 I thought were more pleasing.

In any case viewing his images digital or film, was certainly inspiring. Made me buy some modern lenses and some velvia. I am sure I have a lot to learn and look forward to.

[David Luttmann]

For the stitched images at Rodney's gallery, the resolution between the two systems would be similar. As to "punch"...that would be up to how the digital files were processed. You can "punch" up a digital file to such an extent that Velvia would look muted in comparison. There was probably more "punch" in the film image as the dynamic range of the digital file was in the area of 5+ stops better....in other words, far more range to work with.

If we are talking a single P65 vs 8x10....then yes, the 8x10 would slaughter it in a large print. But a 5 image stitch from a p65, in portrait, to create a panorama, assuming a 25% overlap in each image, would yield a file over 25,000 pixels wide. In other words, the 8x10 would need to have 2500ppi of real information to even begin to compete. I say begin because digital pixels are much cleaner and maintain acutance better than film.

As such, on an 80 inch print, the digital file resolution would greatly exceed 300ppi. In other words, the resolution between both systems would be similar....but the "look" between them would be different. That "look" is up to personal taste. But claiming the digital file was resolution limited compared to the film is simply wishful thinking....as both source systems exceed the resolution capabilities of the printer he uses.

[gnuyork]

For the stitched images at Rodney's gallery, the resolution between the two systems would be similar. As to "punch"...that would be up to how the digital files were processed. You can "punch" up a digital file to such an extent that Velvia would look muted in comparison. There was probably more "punch" in the film image as the dynamic range of the digital file was in the area of 5+ stops better....in other words, far more range to work with.

If we are talking a single P65 vs 8x10....then yes, the 8x10 would slaughter it in a large print. But a 5 image stitch from a p65, in portrait, to create a panorama, assuming a 25% overlap in each image, would yield a file over 25,000 pixels wide. In other words, the 8x10 would need to have 2500ppi of real information to even begin to compete. I say begin because digital pixels are much cleaner and maintain acutance better than film.

As such, on an 80 inch print, the digital file resolution would greatly exceed 300ppi. In other words, the resolution between both systems would be similar....but the "look" between them would be different. That "look" is up to personal taste. But claiming the digital file was resolution limited compared to the film is simply wishful thinking....as both source systems exceed the resolution capabilities of the printer he uses.

Of course you can "punch" digital files beyond Velvia, but that would not look so good. For that matter you can do the same with scanned velvia files. I am sure Rodney, given his track record, made the best prints possible from the digital files, likewise with the scanned chromes. I think the chromes made the better prints.

As far as Rodney's prints, if I put my nose to the prints I could see some minor noise in the digital prints, and virtually no grain in the scanned chrome prints. It didn't really matter from a normal viewing distance.

I don't know what it was, maybe punch is not the right word, but the film images did it for me more than the digital.

This, of course is how I saw it, and my opinion. Other views may vary.

[David Luttmann]

Of course you can "punch" digital files beyond Velvia, but that would not look so good. For that matter you can do the same with scanned velvia files. I am sure Rodney, given his track record, made the best prints possible from the digital files, likewise with the scanned chromes. I think the chromes made the better prints.

As far as Rodney's prints, if I put my nose to the prints I could see some minor noise in the digital prints, and virtually no grain in the scanned chrome prints. It didn't really matter from a normal viewing distance.

I don't know what it was, maybe punch is not the right word, but the film images did it for me more than the digital.

This, of course is how I saw it, and my opinion. Other views may vary.


Understood. I like the look from some films over the equivalent shot in digital on occassion. And I agree....I doubt many can process an image better than Rodney!

[Bill Burk]

I always look at prints closely because I am a printer. I haven't personally created a BW digital print that didn't in some way disappoint me. I mean pizza wheel marks, drip and spatter, premature ozone fading, banding, color cast. I'm sure there are artists who can do better, but I found it exceedingly difficult to get a good B&W digital print.

So I made the decision to wait for digital technology to improve. Meanwhile, I am going to shoot 4x5 and print 11x14 B&W.

If digital technology helps me to this end, I will use it. For example I carry around a DSLR for exercise, to keep my eye trained. For previewing, it's a nice step up from holding a Wratten 90 filter up to my eye.

Though my prints are getting pretty good, I just noticed they are a bit fuzzy under 30x scope compared to a couple George Fiske albumen contact prints from 1884. This won't drive me to 8x10 contact prints, but now I totally get the appeal.

Bill

p.s. George's prints faded a bit over the years. I think I figured out what the dark brush marks on the mountain were - he spotted the prints and the print faded but the Spotone didn't.

[gnuyork]

I have been using my Epson 2400 with very good results in both B&W and color, but recently, my photo mentor (college professor) that I stay in touch with gave me a very large quantity of B&W paper & chemicals in sizes 8x10 all the way up to 20x24, in addition he gave me mass quantity of Ilfochrome paper and chemicals as well a nearly a lifetime supply of film 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5 in B&W and color, slide. My freezer is full! He would have given me 8x10 film if I wanted it, but I don't have a camera for it right now.

He also gave me 2 enlargers. An omega for 4x5, and a Leica Focomat II (in addition to the 2 enlargers I already have)...

So it looks like I will be busy using up that stuff. I am working on getting a space organized in my basement now.

I didn't have room for it in my vehicle, but he also has fro me a stainless steel darkroom sink and one of those Ilfochrome print processing machines the next time I visit.

I may have my own lab before long.

[Gordon Moat]

If someone feels a P65 can replace 8x10 for their work, more power to them. But the P65 does not meet my image quality criteria. I can see why it's useful and who the market is, but it's not me. I have tons of time, not much money, and I'm picky. LF film is a perfect fit for me.

It's interesting you should bring up Burtynsky... I have always felt he and a few others print 4x5 way too large. The prints don't hold up... There's a feeling of "it's LF, so it can be enlarged forever." I'm sure he has his reasons, but to me it seems like such a waste to not shoot 8x10 after going through all the trouble he goes through.

I've seen Burtynsky prints on exhibit at MOPA in San Diego, and I am not quite sure what you mean by them not "holding up". I suppose if you had the opportunity to drop a loupe onto the prints you might find them lacking, but at a normal viewing distance with normal (my vision is quite good) vision, I didn't notice anything lacking. Those were probably some of the best prints I have seen, and the only comparable prints I have seen were the C-prints of David Fokos. Who do you feel does better enlarged 4x5 prints?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[D. Bryant]

I have been using my Epson 2400 with very good results in both B&W and color, but recently, my photo mentor (college professor) that I stay in touch with gave me a very large quantity of B&W paper & chemicals in sizes 8x10 all the way up to 20x24, in addition he gave me mass quantity of Ilfochrome paper and chemicals as well a nearly a lifetime supply of film 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5 in B&W and color, slide. My freezer is full! He would have given me 8x10 film if I wanted it, but I don't have a camera for it right now.

He also gave me 2 enlargers. An omega for 4x5, and a Leica Focomat II (in addition to the 2 enlargers I already have)...

So it looks like I will be busy using up that stuff. I am working on getting a space organized in my basement now.

I didn't have room for it in my vehicle, but he also has fro me a stainless steel darkroom sink and one of those Ilfochrome print processing machines the next time I visit.

I may have my own lab before long.

I'm in the Atlanta area if he/she has any crumbs left over. :)

Don