PDA

View Full Version : Large Format vs Medium Format Digital



timparkin
22-Dec-2011, 15:47
Well thanks to everyone who helped with the planning and analysis of the testing. All of the results and analysis are now up at

http://www.landscapegb.com/issues/lgb-0028/

The bottom line? 8x10 rules the roost and the challenge is really 4x5 vs IQ180 - personally I think the 4x5 wins but it's close..

Tim

p.s some interesting conclusions about differences between 10x8 and 4x5 in my report bit (i.e. almost no difference in resolution once you stop down to an equivalent depth of field of f/32 on 4x5).

Leigh
22-Dec-2011, 16:45
(i.e. almost no difference in resolution once you stop down to an equivalent depth of field of f/32 on 4x5).
What constitutes an "equivalent" DoF?

DoF calculations include a fudge factor called the Circle of Confusion, which changes with negative size, getting bigger with larger formats.

- Leigh

timparkin
22-Dec-2011, 16:51
What constitutes an "equivalent" DoF?

DoF calculations include a fudge factor called the Circle of Confusion, which changes with negative size, getting bigger with larger formats.

- Leigh

I've worked it out based on the same visible depth of field in the image - i.e. so all of the images look the same. (so CoC will scale with sensor size).

dsim
22-Dec-2011, 17:13
Wow Tim, a lot of testing obviously, your efforts are appreciated by all. The use of the 80x stereo microscope was helpful with showing absolute film resolution and I'm sure us 8x10 and other Large Format photogs are not surprised.

timparkin
22-Dec-2011, 17:27
Thanks Dsim!

Bill_1856
22-Dec-2011, 18:46
I don't understand any of this!
Can you see any difference between any of these in a 16x20/24 print?

Robert Jonathan
22-Dec-2011, 19:22
Hi Tim,
Do you think Portra is resolving much more fine detail than Velvia? Looks like it to me... or is it because of the 400 ISO vs. 50 ISO that allows for faster shutter speeds? I'm talking about the landscape shots. If Portra is better, than Portra 160 looks like it would kick ass in the studio with 8x10. I'm still messing with Provia chromes...

Ed Kelsey
22-Dec-2011, 19:27
I don't believe it for a minute. My 33 megapixel Leaf Aptus 75S is just a shade behind 4x5 in terms of resolution. Dynamic range..no contest.

timparkin
22-Dec-2011, 19:41
I don't understand any of this!
Can you see any difference between any of these in a 16x20/24 print?

Just look at the pretty pictures then ;-) I've talked about print assessment in my editors conclusions. And yes you can tell a difference.

timparkin
22-Dec-2011, 19:42
Hi Tim,
Do you think Portra is resolving much more fine detail than Velvia? Looks like it to me... or is it because of the 400 ISO vs. 50 ISO that allows for faster shutter speeds? I'm talking about the landscape shots. If Portra is better, than Portra 160 looks like it would kick ass in the studio with 8x10. I'm still messing with Provia chromes...

Yes Portra does seem to out resolve chromes and Portra 160 out resolves Portra 400

timparkin
22-Dec-2011, 19:45
I don't believe it for a minute. My 33 megapixel Leaf Aptus 75S is just a shade behind 4x5 in terms of resolution. Dynamic range..no contest.

Go try some Portra 400. Make sure you place darkest shadows at -3. Did you take a look at the dynamic range test on the Portra 400 page? A 10 stop bracket of a sunset directly into the sun with no grad! I know the phase can't do that. Do you think the leaf can?

Mark Stahlke
22-Dec-2011, 20:41
Thanks for taking on this project Tim. It looks like an exhaustive comparison. I'm still working my way through it.

Nathan Potter
22-Dec-2011, 21:39
Tim, quite excellent. These are results that I would have expected. I think you were successful in taming the focus capture beast and the vibration beastie and so got to the intrinsic properties of each of the systems quite nicely.

Good description of image quality differences too, giving us a sense of why both film and digital capture have their place.

Great thanks

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

John NYC
22-Dec-2011, 22:14
Yes, I've just spent a couple hours with all this. Great work, Tim, on a very difficult testing scenario.

Of course everyone else's conclusions may differ, but for me this test really confirmed my hypotheses made in other threads... that it is probably with about a 120MP digital back (with subsequent up-rez) that 8x10 finally gets summarily blown out of the water for real world outside subjects/conditions. I am, of course, assuming dynamic range and highlight handling will improve as we get further up the digital chain. And for now, 8x10 wins by a (noisy) nose in terms of resolution. Would love to see large prints made from each.

Brian C. Miller
23-Dec-2011, 02:54
Of course everyone else's conclusions may differ, but for me this test really confirmed my hypotheses made in other threads... that it is probably with about a 120MP digital back (with subsequent up-rez) that 8x10 finally gets summarily blown out of the water for real world outside subjects/conditions.

There is the current Hasselblad with 200Mp "effective resolution." I posted about it in the Lounge (link (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=83825)). Since it uses a current generation sensor, the reflections of the overhead lights on the chrome banisters just goes into the toilet. I wonder what it would actually do with the "trumpet" pattern, but I suspect that it would break down here just like the IQ180 did. It would certaintly not be able to cope with the windy outdoor conditions like the other cameras did.

Tim, thanks for this excellent test! Too bad the weather wasn't nicer.

timparkin
23-Dec-2011, 03:03
There is the current Hasselblad with 200Mp "effective resolution." I posted about it in the Lounge (link (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=83825)). Since it uses a current generation sensor, the reflections of the overhead lights on the chrome banisters just goes into the toilet. I wonder what it would actually do with the "trumpet" pattern, but I suspect that it would break down here just like the IQ180 did. It would certaintly not be able to cope with the windy outdoor conditions like the other cameras did.

Tim, thanks for this excellent test! Too bad the weather wasn't nicer.

Thanks Brian - in many ways I think the fact that the test conditions were windy helped as it debunked a major myth about not getting sharp images in real world conditions. I think the Hassleblad may get over some of the issues with the trumpet pattern as in one of its modes it shifts a full pixel hence making sure it gets a red, green and blue pixel at every location in the grid. This would get rid of a lot of the colour fringing issues (as long as everything stayed in 5 micron alignment in between shots!)

Edward (Halifax,NS)
23-Dec-2011, 06:13
Tim, this was an excellent test and article. Since I never enlarge to more than 16X20in seems that there are currently many options available to me. Until my finances greatly improve I will be sticking with 4X5 sheet film and 120 roll film on my 4X5 camera. If I won the lottery I would move to the IQ180 on a high end Medium Format system.

timparkin
23-Dec-2011, 06:21
Tim, this was an excellent test and article. Since I never enlarge to more than 16X20in seems that there are currently many options available to me. Until my finances greatly improve I will be sticking with 4X5 sheet film and 120 roll film on my 4X5 camera. If I won the lottery I would move to the IQ180 on a high end Medium Format system.

Hi Edward,

yes indeed, if you are printing at 16x20 then your roll film will probably be OK to get nice crisp prints if scanned on a half decent scanner (preferably not a desktop). I'm going to be running another comparison soon about smaller prints to see how 4x5 compares with lower end digital and medium format/small format (I've printed a few half decent 16x20's from 35mm velvia when drum scanned and critically sharpened - I wouldn't call them 'sharp' but acceptable, maybe so).

Tim

John NYC
23-Dec-2011, 06:34
There is the current Hasselblad with 200Mp "effective resolution."

Yeah, I don't think that will get us there yet in the tonality part. As I mentioned, I am also assuming the other aspects of sensor design (handling of dynamic range and highlights) will also be improving as we move to 120MP+ one day.

Joseph O'Neil
23-Dec-2011, 06:46
One other thing to consider is how you have to upgrade your hardware when you go to bigger digital camera. For example, my D7000 - raw images at 16 meg convert to 80 to 90 meg TIF files.

You know what kind of processing power, hard drive space and the minor fortune you have to invest in SD cards? Not to mention, I had to upgrade the cooling fan on my new computer, the procesor was over heating.

My "computer guy" bascially told me if I went to this new Nikon D800 with that is rated at 36 meg, a new computer with a powerful enough processor woudl need a water cooled system for the CPU.

In the meantime, my DeVere 504 is still going great, and doesn't need upgrades.
:)

Don't get me wrong, if enough money fell into my hands, yeah, i would be silly enough to get a new D800, but the bottom line is, when you upgrade your camera to "match" what LF film can do, you have to "upgrade" everything else along the line, and strickly from a business point of view, in today's economy, can such outlays of cold hard cash be justified?

joe

John NYC
23-Dec-2011, 08:02
My "computer guy" bascially told me if I went to this new Nikon D800 with that is rated at 36 meg, a new computer with a powerful enough processor woudl need a water cooled system for the CPU.

joe

I think your computer guy is trying to sell you something. My recent base model iMac with 4 gigs of ram can easily handle my 256MB 8x10 scans. And it is tolerable with my 500MB scans.

clay harmon
23-Dec-2011, 08:08
I concur. My 4 year old MacPro handles 39Megapixel Phase One files just fine without any problems. The new iMacs are more powerful than what I am using.


I think your computer guy is trying to sell you something. My recent base model iMac with 4 gigs of ram can easily handle my 256MB 8x10 scans. And it is tolerable with my 500MB scans.

sanking
23-Dec-2011, 09:13
Very interesting work. I have found in my own tests that a 6X7 cm negative made with good Mamiya 7 optics equals or beats 4X5. Your tests seem to suggest that as well.

Sandy

jp
23-Dec-2011, 09:22
One other thing to consider is how you have to upgrade your hardware when you go to bigger digital camera. For example, my D7000 - raw images at 16 meg convert to 80 to 90 meg TIF files.

You know what kind of processing power, hard drive space and the minor fortune you have to invest in SD cards? Not to mention, I had to upgrade the cooling fan on my new computer, the procesor was over heating.

My "computer guy" bascially told me if I went to this new Nikon D800 with that is rated at 36 meg, a new computer with a powerful enough processor woudl need a water cooled system for the CPU.

In the meantime, my DeVere 504 is still going great, and doesn't need upgrades.
:)

Don't get me wrong, if enough money fell into my hands, yeah, i would be silly enough to get a new D800, but the bottom line is, when you upgrade your camera to "match" what LF film can do, you have to "upgrade" everything else along the line, and strickly from a business point of view, in today's economy, can such outlays of cold hard cash be justified?

joe

I'm one of those computer guys. Fans fail when they get old (and clogged with dust). Chances are your computer is >2-3 years old for that to happen or you have an unusual dust problem.

You would want something newer for next years high end DSLRs. Needing it watercooled is a bit of hyperbole to put it nicely. A new computer with 6 processor cores and 16GB ram and a 64 bit OS can be built pretty inexpensively and will nicely put to shame most anything sold two years ago.

My quad-core 8gb ram PC can handle 250 MB scans just fine, but the speed difference shows when handling raw files from different cameras. It's a speed demon running batches of adjustments/conversion on 6MP raw files compared to slower and more intensive work dealing with the much larger 12MP files of higher bit-levels. With LF, you don't have a big volume to deal with, but it's easy to have a big volume of photos to process with a DSLR. I would want to upgrade it for a d800 as well, but it wouldn't be critical.

sanking
23-Dec-2011, 09:32
My "computer guy" bascially told me if I went to this new Nikon D800 with that is rated at 36 meg, a new computer with a powerful enough processor woudl need a water cooled system for the CPU.

joe

I work with scans of MF and LF films that are 200-500 mb on a two year old iMac without any big problem. More speed is always helpful but unless you are involved with production schedules processing a 500 mb file with a current generation iMac with 8-16 gb of RAM is no problem at all.

By contrast, a 36 mp file from a nikon D800 should be kid's play.

Sandy

David Luttmann
23-Dec-2011, 09:54
I think your computer guy is trying to sell you something. My recent base model iMac with 4 gigs of ram can easily handle my 256MB 8x10 scans. And it is tolerable with my 500MB scans.

Agreed. I have a Win 7 workstation with 6gb of ram and I have no problem with 1gb 4x5 scans.

john wood
23-Dec-2011, 10:19
Great work; thanks for posting this! Very interesting. "if you are printing at 16x20 then your roll film will probably be OK to get nice crisp prints if scanned on a half decent scanner"...then I would assume (I know I'm not the brightest) that you could print larger if it's a straight negative>paper print?

Brian Ellis
23-Dec-2011, 10:32
One other thing to consider is how you have to upgrade your hardware when you go to bigger digital camera. For example, my D7000 - raw images at 16 meg convert to 80 to 90 meg TIF files.

You know what kind of processing power, hard drive space and the minor fortune you have to invest in SD cards? Not to mention, I had to upgrade the cooling fan on my new computer, the procesor was over heating.

My "computer guy" bascially told me if I went to this new Nikon D800 with that is rated at 36 meg, a new computer with a powerful enough processor woudl need a water cooled system for the CPU.

In the meantime, my DeVere 504 is still going great, and doesn't need upgrades.
:)

Don't get me wrong, if enough money fell into my hands, yeah, i would be silly enough to get a new D800, but the bottom line is, when you upgrade your camera to "match" what LF film can do, you have to "upgrade" everything else along the line, and strickly from a business point of view, in today's economy, can such outlays of cold hard cash be justified?

joe


I don't understand what you mean when you say 18 mpx raw files convert to 80 and 90 meg tiff files. Tiffs converted from raw from my 21 mpx Canon 1Ds MarkIII camera aren't anything like that size. Are you talking about stitching? Saving a file with a lot of layers after editing? Either I'm missing something (if so please let me know) or you have something in mind besides just converting a raw file to a tiff.

Upgrade hardware and everything else because you move to a bigger digital camera? I've been using a $1,000 or so Dell computer with 8 gigs of RAM for five years and a very similar HP computer for about five years before that. I didn't have to upgrade my computer or anything else when I went from a Nikon D100 camera with about 8 mpx IIRC to a Canon 5D with 12 mpx to the 1DsIII with 21. I've upgraded my printer, my external hard drives, and various other things over the years but not because I bought new cameras.

Water cooled CPU for a 36 mpx camera (that doesn't exist)? You need a new computer guy.

Minor fortune in SD cards? You've got to be kidding. An SD card costs maybe $20 - $50 depending on size and grade. And with it you can make thousands and thousands of photographs.

I'm not going to argue about quality of prints or cost or any other aspect of the digital vs film quarrels that pop up here so regularly. But frankly nothing in your message makes any sense at all to me based on my experience except the part about your Devere enlarger not needing an upgrade (though your wallet may need an upgrade to keep buying film for it).

Lightbender
23-Dec-2011, 11:06
I don't understand any of this!
Can you see any difference between any of these in a 16x20/24 print?

My answer to this is absolutely.
:eek:

I visited a gallery recently where the photographer used a 8x10 tachihara extensively for color landscape photography.
The prints were far and away better than anything I have seen from digital capture devices.

Brian Ellis
23-Dec-2011, 11:11
My answer to this is absolutely.
:eek:

I visited a gallery recently where the photographer used a 8x10 tachihara extensively for color landscape photography.
The prints were far and away better than anything I have seen from digital capture devices.

This is a pretty meaningless statement without telling us what images from what digital capture devices made by what photographers/printers you've seen.

Jim collum
23-Dec-2011, 11:20
from shooting over the years... 4x5 Ektar100, Aptus 75S, & Betterlight scanning back..my experience has been Ektar100 & Betterlight are about even. The Aptus was pretty much on par with scanned 6x7 Ektar.. with the Ektar getting slightly more detail, but with a little more background 'noise (grain)'. nothing scientific along the lines of comparing MTF curves of each of the lenses used. Regardless of the lenses used thought, the Aptus was never a competitor with the 4x5, and i'd wouldn't expect the Betterlight to surpass 8x10

Mark Stahlke
23-Dec-2011, 11:30
OK, I worked my way through the entire test. It's quite an interesting piece of work.
I have one minor quibble with the testing methodology. It appears lens hoods were not used for any of the test photos. My reading on this forum tells me proper lens shades can make a big difference.

tgtaylor
23-Dec-2011, 11:30
"My, my! A lot of oxen being gored around here."

Thomas

timparkin
23-Dec-2011, 12:19
OK, I worked my way through the entire test. It's quite an interesting piece of work.
I have one minor quibble with the testing methodology. It appears lens hoods were not used for any of the test photos. My reading on this forum tells me proper lens shades can make a big difference.

I can see your point but the brightest light sources were in the picture. the only areas outside the picture for the studio shot was the ceiling (where there were no lights) and the walls and floor (which were darker than the walls in the scene). I've only seen flare as a problem when substantial areas that form the image circle are brighter than the normal parts of the picture. If there were any flare, I would expect to see Dmax affected but there was no evidence of tonality difference outside the rebate of the film.

The scene outside should possibly have used a lens hood, I agree - however, again, no evidence can be seen in difference between dmax of hidden rebate and edge of frame. Funny you should say that because I nearly always use when shooting outside.

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/topping-dmax-flare.jpg

Here's a sample showing the rebate and an area of darkness in the image. If there is any veiling flare it's beyond the scanners ability to differentiate. Well spotted though!

Tim

clay harmon
23-Dec-2011, 13:35
Thanks for taking the time to do this so carefully. Very interesting results. Think I'll keep by HR8000 scanner for a while longer.

rdenney
23-Dec-2011, 14:51
I don't understand what you mean when you say 18 mpx raw files convert to 80 and 90 meg tiff files.

An uncompressed TIFF file has 48 bits per pixel, or 6 bytes (two each for red, green, and blue). 6 x 18M = 108M.

But I agree with your conclusion. I make 90-megapixel files (>500MB 48-bit TIFFs) by scanning 6x7 at 4000 spi, or 4x5 at 2400 spi. No problem dealing with those on my cheapie quad-core, 8GB RAM Win7 box that you guys laughed at when I bought it at Costco.

Rick "noting that layered PSD files are even bigger" Denney

timparkin
23-Dec-2011, 14:56
Out of interest I have an old MacPro and a new MacBook Pro and they have both coped quite nicely with my 1Gb 5x4 scans. It was only when I started playing with 2Gb layered scans and a 7.6Gb 8x10 scan that I needed to upgrade my mac. I've not got dual raid 0 SSD scratch drive and 16Gb of ram. Still not particularly nippy but it handles layered 2Gb files OK now. When I open 500Mb scans on my Macbook pro they positively fly..

mortensen
23-Dec-2011, 16:04
Thanks for the comprehensive work, Tim - much appreciated!!!

Patrick Raymore
23-Dec-2011, 16:51
Tim,

Do I need to give you my email, name etc before viewing the results?

timparkin
23-Dec-2011, 17:05
Tim,

Do I need to give you my email, name etc before viewing the results?

No.. Would be good to have more subscribers though :-)

Brian Ellis
24-Dec-2011, 08:44
An uncompressed TIFF file has 48 bits per pixel, or 6 bytes (two each for red, green, and blue). 6 x 18M = 108M.

But I agree with your conclusion. I make 90-megapixel files (>500MB 48-bit TIFFs) by scanning 6x7 at 4000 spi, or 4x5 at 2400 spi. No problem dealing with those on my cheapie quad-core, 8GB RAM Win7 box that you guys laughed at when I bought it at Costco.

Rick "noting that layered PSD files are even bigger" Denney

Thanks Rick, I understand that there's an increase. I was questioning the order of magnitude. I should have done the math first.

Bill_1856
24-Dec-2011, 11:43
. And yes you can tell a difference.

What is the difference (are the differences)?

timparkin
24-Dec-2011, 14:04
What is the difference (are the differences)?

Well at 20x24 I could see a crispness of texture that was different between the P45 an Sony A900 and then the IQ180 and large format. The smaller formats had a look that was almost like a dabbed on oil paint. The strokes looked obvious. Whereas the larger formats looked more photorealistic. It was subtle but I asked a few people on an area that had similar colour (i.e. so that they wouldn't be influenced by tonality) and most people chose the larger formats as looking more 'real' but occasionally some would choose the smaller formats and say they looked sharper. This seems to be because of a spike in the frequency near the limit of the sensor resolution, hence creating larger contrast around that frequency. Hence, for people who's eyesight wasn't quite as good their limit of resolution corresponded to this frequency. For some people, they also chose the IQ180 over the film because of it's lack of grain. However, as many people chose the 8x10 over the IQ180 'because it looked more real' - this was at very large enlargements though, 50x70 ish. The sample size isn't great, only about 8 people so far, but most chose the IQ or LF out of the selection that included P45 and Sony A900. They also chose the 8x10 over the 4x5 (which surprised me).

paulr
24-Dec-2011, 15:10
The article demonstrates something I've been talking about for a long time, which I think is true regardless of format: the huge difference between maximum possible quality and typical quality.

A small handful of my 4x5 negatives are almost supernatually detailed, while the majority don't come close. It's because depth of field vs. diffraction compromises, wind, or sloppiness of unknown origin. 8x10 gives an even wider spread between the possible and the typical. The article shows that group f64, if we take their name literally, worked with the equivalent of not that many megapixels.

I haven't worked with a digital MF technical camera, but from what I've read there are similar issues, largely revolving around focussing precision. I'd be curious to hear from someone who has field experience with one of the technical cameras and big backs.

PhiloFarmer
24-Dec-2011, 15:13
THANK YOU, Tim & Team...for all your hard work...your planning...your considerations...your execution...your analysis. Wonderful! We will all, in our own ways, use your work as a reference...and hopefully build an even more creative world together.

Let's do a similar comparison in five-years...Yes??

Cheers!

timparkin
24-Dec-2011, 15:17
The article demonstrates something I've been talking about for a long time, which I think is true regardless of format: the huge difference between maximum possible quality and typical quality.

A small handful of my 4x5 negatives are almost supernatually detailed, while the majority don't come close. It's because depth of field vs. diffraction compromises, wind, or sloppiness of unknown origin. 8x10 gives an even wider spread between the possible and the typical. The article shows that group f64, if we take their name literally, worked with the equivalent of not that many megapixels.

I haven't worked with a digital MF technical camera, but from what I've read there are similar issues, largely revolving around focussing precision. I'd be curious to hear from someone who has field experience with one of the technical cameras and big backs.

Well I can say from the experience of running the test that focussing on the medium format backs isn't that easy. I found perfect focus on the 10x8 ground glass in seconds because the back could render the details at such a fine level, it was easy to see peak focus come in and out. However, the medium format backs had a cap on resolution and hence you are working to maximise contrast, not detail. This is often difficult to see on a small ground glass (although the Alpa ground glass is very, very nice!). Live view helps but with only a one second refresh you can't focus by 'sweeping' like you would on a ground glass, very often it's only really useful as a confirmation of focus rather than as a live focussing tool. Saying that, it's good enough to get you 95% of the way :-)

I was quite surprised at quite how aperture kills resolution on the 4x5 (and even more surprised at the 8x10 drop off). I'm less obsessed with 100% sharp focus throughout anyway and like the creativity of focus that focal plane control fives you. Good job really! :-)

paulr
24-Dec-2011, 15:58
In a review of the Arca Swiss technical camera there was mention of some kind of laser focussing device. Unfortunately the reviewers didn't get their hands on the thing in time for the article. I have a hard time imagining what it would be like to work that way.

Do any of the Phase One backs allow tethering to a laptop or ipad?

Daniel Stone
24-Dec-2011, 16:08
...Do any of the Phase One backs allow tethering to a laptop or ipad?

Since their beginning, digital backs have been designed to be used tethered. Only in the last ~10 years have CF/memory card capability been included with SOME digital backs, now making them more field-ready and portable. Having hi-resolution screens(like on the IQ180) aids with assessing focus post-capture, further eliminating/removing the need to tote a laptop into the field w/ your camera gear. Lots still tote their laptops into the field though.

-Dan

Vaughn
24-Dec-2011, 16:12
My 11x14 will smash any digital camera out there...;)

Happy Holidays!

Vaughn

Ari
24-Dec-2011, 19:15
My 11x14 will smash any digital camera out there...;)

Happy Holidays!

Vaughn

Six or seven years ago, I'd have said: "My 35mm camera will smash any digital camera out there..."

:)

taulen
24-Dec-2011, 19:45
Luckily 20x24 shooters can say that for a while yet :P

paulr
24-Dec-2011, 21:20
Each of these cameras will smash the others, when judged with a particular need in mind. That's why a review like this is so useful. It's not about what's best, but about what's best at what and under what conditions.

For my last three projects I used a 4x5, a Hasselblad, and a cheap dslr. Each was made possible by the respective camera of choice.

SamReeves
24-Dec-2011, 22:07
Question is, what is more cost effective? Anyone got a several thousand dollars lying around for a MF digital body? :)

paulr
24-Dec-2011, 22:55
Question is, what is more cost effective? Anyone got a several thousand dollars lying around for a MF digital body? :)

I don't, but people who process a large volume of color film might.
I'm mostly attracted to the workflow. Film processing is time consuming, and making high quality large format scans is time consuming, especially from color negatives. I'm a bit addicted to the efficiency of the digital workflow. Sadly I can't afford the kind of camera / back I'd like to have, but that could change someday.

Vaughn
24-Dec-2011, 23:18
Luckily 20x24 shooters can say that for a while yet :P

Gad..a 20x24 can smash the photographer!

Brian C. Miller
24-Dec-2011, 23:28
Oh, for heaven's sakes! My Pentax 6x7 can smash a digital camera! I just whip it around hard enough and ... WHAM!

I might even be able to make photographs with it, afterwards. :)

gary mulder
25-Dec-2011, 01:58
Question is, what is more cost effective? Anyone got a several thousand dollars lying around for a MF digital body? :)

Considering why film sales have been going down, you know the answer to that question. It's a no brainer.

timparkin
25-Dec-2011, 02:34
Oh, for heaven's sakes! My Pentax 6x7 can smash a digital camera! I just whip it around hard enough and ... WHAM!

Just the shock wave of the shutter firing would disable many DSLRs ;-)

meerkat
25-Dec-2011, 15:34
When I go to the Whitney Biennial this coming March, I'll be certain to bring a microscope to look at the photographic prints. It's being curated by Sondra Gilman (who is also curator of photography at the Whitney) and Elisabeth Sussman and Jay Sanders. I wonder if they used Zeiss or Leitz microscopes in their decisions as to what to select. I've been told that Zeiss is superior to Leitz, and so that certainly would have a bearing on their decision making.

John NYC
25-Dec-2011, 15:50
When I go to the Whitney Biennial this coming March, I'll be certain to bring a microscope to look at the photographic prints. It's being curated by Sondra Gilman (who is also curator of photography at the Whitney) and Elisabeth Sussman and Jay Sanders. I wonder if they used Zeiss or Leitz microscopes in their decisions as to what to select. I've been told that Zeiss is superior to Leitz, and so that certainly would have a bearing on their decision making.

Do you honestly think that is how we think? Taking a little time to understand the tools of the art does not mean that is what we value most. It certainly isn't for me. Please enlighten me with all you know about aesthetics that I also have not studied.

timparkin
25-Dec-2011, 15:52
When I go to the Whitney Biennial this coming March, I'll be certain to bring a microscope to look at the photographic prints. It's being curated by Sondra Gilman (who is also curator of photography at the Whitney) and Elisabeth Sussman and Jay Sanders. I wonder if they used Zeiss or Leitz microscopes in their decisions as to what to select. I've been told that Zeiss is superior to Leitz, and so that certainly would have a bearing on their decision making.

I'm sure you meant this as sarcasm but ...

http://whitney.org/Research/TechnicalStudies

http://whitney.org/image_columns/0003/1693/matt_working_in_lab_3_320_copy_440.jpg

You can't tell what the microscope is however.. ;-)

Tim

John NYC
25-Dec-2011, 20:50
Got a PM from Meerkat, and it was a sarcastic post. Sorry I did not pick up on that, but am a little jumpy from the previous threads on this topic where it goes all pear shaped about resolution discussions.

Steve Smith
26-Dec-2011, 02:31
You can't tell what the microscope is however.. ;-)

Probably Olympus.


Steve.

paulr
27-Dec-2011, 23:29
I wonder if they used Zeiss or Leitz microscopes in their decisions as to what to select. I've been told that Zeiss is superior to Leitz, and so that certainly would have a bearing on their decision making.

The younger generation of curators just compares the image histograms. It's way more efficient.

(I've actually considered submitting a portfolio of historgrams; I just suspect too few people are geeky enough to get the joke)

Jon Warwick
28-Dec-2011, 08:31
Tim - many thanks for producing such a thorough and well-written test.

Re: your comments on the Mamiya 7 resolution vs. 4x5. It seems you're stating that the Mamiya could potentially match 4x5, via (i) A larger scan, perhaps 12,000dpi. But would an extra-high dpi scan also produce more grain content that could further crush fine detail?; and are there many labs in the UK producing such large dpi scans, making such a scan fairly elusive anyhow?; (ii) Make traditional "wet" prints using top-end technique and equipment. That's perhaps fine for smaller prints up to 20"x24". But I suspect it's fairly unfeasible and uncommon to find pro-labs that produce exhibition-quality wet prints any larger than 20"x24" in a "traditional darkroom" these days?

Secondly, in your "Printed Results" section, you discuss 8x10 versus the IQ180 and at what sizes you subjectively think one "looks" better than the other ...... can you give us a similar view on the "Printed Results" of DSLRs (Canon 5D Mark 2 and Nikon D3X) vs. scanned Portra from a Mamiya 7? I ask that, especially because of your comments that "Just as an aside, the Mamiya 7 did very well in the resolution tests and yet the files looked a lot worse than the absolute resolution would indicate. This is due to the grain of the film starting to obscure tonality and fine detailed textures. Low contrast elements got lost within the grain in most cases. The Mamiya 7 ended up resolving considerably more than the DSLRs but looking only slightly better than them".

I've looked at "Comparing Canon 5Dmk2 with Mamiya 7, Portra 160", and I'd agree that the Mamiya 7 image does look grainier but (similar to your comments) is equally relatively sharper and in my view more "3D" than the DSLRs. Can you elaborate on your above comments a bit more, up to what size prints you think a Mamiya 7 only looks slighty better than the DSLRs? Given the "resolution brick wall" of digital, does the slight visual upside of the Mamiya 7 over the DSLRs become more and more apparent with larger print sizes; and - at the same time - is the difference between prints from DSLRs and a Mamiya 7 pretty minimal up to certain print sizes, etc etc?

As an aside, I thought your side-by-side comparison that uses a "slider" within the section "Choose which cameras / films to compare" was quite brilliant.

Thanks -- and once again, congratulations on such a thorough review.

engl
30-Dec-2011, 03:33
Thank you, and those assisting, for another interesting comparison. Well executed as always!

I'm not very surprised about the digital vs film part (although seeing how well resolution holds up on 8x10-covering lenses was interesting), but it was interesting to see Mamiya 7 vs. 4x5. I've found my Mamiya 7 negs to be incredibly detailed, but the larger enlargement vs. 4x5 tends to make grain and tonality worse. It is also places high demands on the scanner.

timparkin
30-Dec-2011, 03:43
Tim - many thanks for producing such a thorough and well-written test.

Thanks



Re: your comments on the Mamiya 7 resolution vs. 4x5. It seems you're stating that the Mamiya could potentially match 4x5, via (i) A larger scan, perhaps 12,000dpi. But would an extra-high dpi scan also produce more grain content that could further crush fine detail?; and are there many labs in the UK producing such large dpi scans, making such a scan fairly elusive anyhow?;

There are about four or five places to get scans at that resolution done but they aren't as cheap as getting me to do them (I charge 10+VAT for a 6x7 slide at 4000dpi - I think the best drum scanner currently charges more like 100+VAT for the highest res scan)



(ii) Make traditional "wet" prints using top-end technique and equipment. That's perhaps fine for smaller prints up to 20"x24". But I suspect it's fairly unfeasible and uncommon to find pro-labs that produce exhibition-quality wet prints any larger than 20"x24" in a "traditional darkroom" these days?

Very true - I think the UK has no-one left that operates a full commercial business doing this, even metro now scans for print. You'd have to go to one of the classic German printing houses to get a proper print.





Secondly, in your "Printed Results" section, you discuss 8x10 versus the IQ180 and at what sizes you subjectively think one "looks" better than the other ...... can you give us a similar view on the "Printed Results" of DSLRs (Canon 5D Mark 2 and Nikon D3X) vs. scanned Portra from a Mamiya 7? I ask that, especially because of your comments that "Just as an aside, the Mamiya 7 did very well in the resolution tests and yet the files looked a lot worse than the absolute resolution would indicate. This is due to the grain of the film starting to obscure tonality and fine detailed textures. Low contrast elements got lost within the grain in most cases. The Mamiya 7 ended up resolving considerably more than the DSLRs but looking only slightly better than them".

I haven't tried printing these as I only have the studio results and I was running print tests on the landscape results. I will be doing this though..

Looking at the results at the bottom of the 800px page though and it looks like the D3X and Mamiya 7 are on a par with each other. However, I'm going to be rescanning to minimise grain and see how the images compare then (I'm still mastering my neg scanning and most of the scans were made to maximise fine detail, not to reduce grain).



I've looked at "Comparing Canon 5Dmk2 with Mamiya 7, Portra 160", and I'd agree that the Mamiya 7 image does look grainier but (similar to your comments) is equally relatively sharper and in my view more "3D" than the DSLRs. Can you elaborate on your above comments a bit more, up to what size prints you think a Mamiya 7 only looks slighty better than the DSLRs? Given the "resolution brick wall" of digital, does the slight visual upside of the Mamiya 7 over the DSLRs become more and more apparent with larger print sizes; and - at the same time - is the difference between prints from DSLRs and a Mamiya 7 pretty minimal up to certain print sizes, etc etc?

This is a test I'm still doing (just rescanning the images now) so I'll get back to you. Drop me a line at info at timparkin dot co dot uk in about a weeks time and I'll send the results through.




As an aside, I thought your side-by-side comparison that uses a "slider" within the section "Choose which cameras / films to compare" was quite brilliant.

Thanks -- and once again, congratulations on such a thorough review.

No problem - I appreciate the interest and support.

timparkin
30-Dec-2011, 03:48
Tim - many thanks for producing such a thorough and well-written test.

Thanks



Re: your comments on the Mamiya 7 resolution vs. 4x5. It seems you're stating that the Mamiya could potentially match 4x5, via (i) A larger scan, perhaps 12,000dpi. But would an extra-high dpi scan also produce more grain content that could further crush fine detail?; and are there many labs in the UK producing such large dpi scans, making such a scan fairly elusive anyhow?;

There are about four or five places to get scans at that resolution done but they aren't as cheap as getting me to do them (I charge 10+VAT for a 6x7 slide at 4000dpi - I think the best drum scanner currently charges more like 100+VAT for the highest res scan)



(ii) Make traditional "wet" prints using top-end technique and equipment. That's perhaps fine for smaller prints up to 20"x24". But I suspect it's fairly unfeasible and uncommon to find pro-labs that produce exhibition-quality wet prints any larger than 20"x24" in a "traditional darkroom" these days?

Very true - I think the UK has no-one left that operates a full commercial business doing this, even metro now scans for print. You'd have to go to one of the classic German printing houses to get a proper print.





Secondly, in your "Printed Results" section, you discuss 8x10 versus the IQ180 and at what sizes you subjectively think one "looks" better than the other ...... can you give us a similar view on the "Printed Results" of DSLRs (Canon 5D Mark 2 and Nikon D3X) vs. scanned Portra from a Mamiya 7? I ask that, especially because of your comments that "Just as an aside, the Mamiya 7 did very well in the resolution tests and yet the files looked a lot worse than the absolute resolution would indicate. This is due to the grain of the film starting to obscure tonality and fine detailed textures. Low contrast elements got lost within the grain in most cases. The Mamiya 7 ended up resolving considerably more than the DSLRs but looking only slightly better than them".

I haven't tried printing these as I only have the studio results and I was running print tests on the landscape results. I will be doing this though..

Looking at the results at the bottom of the 800px page though and it looks like the D3X and Mamiya 7 are on a par with each other. However, I'm going to be rescanning to minimise grain and see how the images compare then (I'm still mastering my neg scanning and most of the scans were made to maximise fine detail, not to reduce grain).



I've looked at "Comparing Canon 5Dmk2 with Mamiya 7, Portra 160", and I'd agree that the Mamiya 7 image does look grainier but (similar to your comments) is equally relatively sharper and in my view more "3D" than the DSLRs. Can you elaborate on your above comments a bit more, up to what size prints you think a Mamiya 7 only looks slighty better than the DSLRs? Given the "resolution brick wall" of digital, does the slight visual upside of the Mamiya 7 over the DSLRs become more and more apparent with larger print sizes; and - at the same time - is the difference between prints from DSLRs and a Mamiya 7 pretty minimal up to certain print sizes, etc etc?

This is a test I'm still doing (just rescanning the images now) so I'll get back to you. Drop me a line at info at timparkin dot co dot uk in about a weeks time and I'll send the results through.




As an aside, I thought your side-by-side comparison that uses a "slider" within the section "Choose which cameras / films to compare" was quite brilliant.

Thanks -- and once again, congratulations on such a thorough review.

No problem - I appreciate the interest and support.

Daniel Moore
30-Dec-2011, 04:09
You've done us a tremendous service, Tim, thank you.

I was very favorably impressed with the amount of color, contrast and tonality in the Mamiya 7 Portra 160 over the DSLR's. Most notably the improved realism of the field cameras metal parts along it's bed. Very attactive quality in and of itself, however it was arrived at (does the film simply have greater ability to see in lower light levels, is the Mamiya lens that much better, do other factors take most of the credit)?

Steve Smith
30-Dec-2011, 04:50
An excellent article with some well thought out comments too. None of the usual digital vs. film nonsense.


Steve.

timparkin
30-Dec-2011, 05:19
An excellent article with some well thought out comments too. None of the usual digital vs. film nonsense.


Steve.

At last! You don't know how much I appreciate someone noticing that it wasn't a film vs digital article. I tried my very best to balance the discussion so that it was comparing different camera types and sensor sizes etc. It's like religion, you can't mention both film and digital in the same discussion without it being a confrontation.

Thanks :-)

timparkin
30-Dec-2011, 05:22
You've done us a tremendous service, Tim, thank you.

I was very favorably impressed with the amount of color, contrast and tonality in the Mamiya 7 Portra 160 over the DSLR's. Most notably the improved realism of the field cameras metal parts along it's bed. Very attactive quality in and of itself, however it was arrived at (does the film simply have greater ability to see in lower light levels, is the Mamiya lens that much better, do other factors take most of the credit)?

You know I'm not quite sure.. The 160 was exposed at f/8 1/4s and the 400 was exposed at f/8 1/8s - according to box speed, the 400 should have been exposed at f/8 1/3 and 1/8s and so it was half a stop over exposed. However I know Portra 400 has more shadow detail.. I'm rescanning side by side at different apertures to try to find out what is going one.

Tim

timparkin
30-Dec-2011, 07:22
You know I'm not quite sure.. The 160 was exposed at f/8 1/4s and the 400 was exposed at f/8 1/8s - according to box speed, the 400 should have been exposed at f/8 1/3 and 1/8s and so it was half a stop over exposed. However I know Portra 400 has more shadow detail.. I'm rescanning side by side at different apertures to try to find out what is going one.

Tim

OK - I've made a direct comparison with 160 vs 400 trying various apertures and also Imgaenomic Noiseware vs Noise Ninja and the smallest aperture with noiseware was better in terms of detail and noise than larger apertures on a drum scan.

The shadows were on a par with each other which means that Portra 160 may have more shadow detail than I though :-)

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/400vs160-shadows.jpg

Whatever it's dynamic range, Portra 160's colour was a lot more accurate out of the box and appeared sharper.

The levels of noise reduction may be slightly different based on how much detail is being destroyed by applying it. The Portra 160 held more detail and hence I didn't apply as much noise reduction.

Tim

Daniel Moore
30-Dec-2011, 13:02
I was actually commenting more on the dramatic disparity between the DSLRs and the Portra 160. The A900 and D3x both look muddy and lifeless whereas the Portra 160 has a nice range of desirable qualities in the lower lit areas especially. The DSLRs show the brass to be more like aluminum, for one. Although, the above examples don't seem as vibrant as the previously posted comparison page images, so my point is best taken looking at your assessment page.

Ken Lee
31-Dec-2011, 05:31
"...hence if we need 30 pixels to represent 15 lines, we should have 30/0.0014 approx 22400 pixels for the frame height..."

I didn't check all the other print calculations, but 30/0.0014 = 21429 or 21400, not 22400. At 300 dpi, that makes a print sized 71 x 89 inches, which is very close to your 75 x 93 of course.

I mention this not to be critical, but because you have performed such a magnificent test. You might want to check the other calculations.

timparkin
1-Jan-2012, 11:33
"...hence if we need 30 pixels to represent 15 lines, we should have 30/0.0014 approx 22400 pixels for the frame height..."

I didn't check all the other print calculations, but 30/0.0014 = 21429 or 21400, not 22400. At 300 dpi, that makes a print sized 71 x 89 inches, which is very close to your 75 x 93 of course.

I mention this not to be critical, but because you have performed such a magnificent test. You might want to check the other calculations.

Hi Ken,

I appreciate the comment! The calculation shown was an approximation - In the previous sentence I said the 15 lines spanned 0.134% of the height of the frame. However, I rounded this to .0014 in the text which obviously doesn't add up. I'll tweak the text - all of the calculations are OK apart from this.

Cheers

Tim

nonuniform
1-Jan-2012, 23:43
Agreed. I have a Win 7 workstation with 6gb of ram and I have no problem with 1gb 4x5 scans.

Yeah, I recently upgraded from an old Core 2 Quad, to a newer i5. The real difference? The chipset can support more RAM. I know have 16gb of RAM and Win7. 500mb - 1gb scans load much faster.

Oh, and no liquid cooling, same old Antec case!

John NYC
3-Jan-2012, 18:53
An interesting comment from the Dx0 Mark testers....

"It is still interesting to note that theoretically, the Phase One IQ180 could score much better with such a huge sensor surface, if the pixel quality would be closer to the quality of the best APS-C (or full frame) sensor’s pixel."

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/News/DxOMark-news/Phase-One-IQ-180-the-new-King-of-all-sensors

toyotadesigner
4-Jan-2012, 11:28
Tim, thanks a lot for the comparison. It shows what I expected. I guess I'll never like digital images, because film looks a lot nicer, sharper and more detailed, whereas digital shows artifacts and a plastic look.

I just checked the comparison of the PhaseOne and the Mamiya 7 because I'm shooting mostly 6x9 with Fujis and an Arca Swiss.

Sean Galbraith
5-Jan-2012, 09:19
I visited a gallery recently where the photographer used a 8x10 tachihara extensively for color landscape photography.
The prints were far and away better than anything I have seen from digital capture devices.

I had the same impression at a recent Burtynsky exhibition I visited. It was painfully obvious which shots were 4x5 and which were digital medium format.

bob carnie
5-Jan-2012, 09:22
Was this the show at Metiver? I saw the show at the ROM and completely missed the private gallery show. I wanted to see the private gallery show as I believe some of the work was with the 65mp back on hasselblad.
What did you notice in quality differences between his 4x5 film capture and the Hasselblad phase capture?


I had the same impression at a recent Burtynsky exhibition I visited. It was painfully obvious which shots were 4x5 and which were digital medium format.

nonuniform
5-Jan-2012, 13:05
One of the reasons I stopped using the digital back with my Hasselblad 500 was the inability to focus the image consistently. Being even slightly off matters! I'm much faster with a 4x5.


Well I can say from the experience of running the test that focussing on the medium format backs isn't that easy. I found perfect focus on the 10x8 ground glass in seconds because the back could render the details at such a fine level, it was easy to see peak focus come in and out. However, the medium format backs had a cap on resolution and hence you are working to maximise contrast, not detail. This is often difficult to see on a small ground glass (although the Alpa ground glass is very, very nice!). Live view helps but with only a one second refresh you can't focus by 'sweeping' like you would on a ground glass, very often it's only really useful as a confirmation of focus rather than as a live focussing tool. Saying that, it's good enough to get you 95% of the way :-)

I was quite surprised at quite how aperture kills resolution on the 4x5 (and even more surprised at the 8x10 drop off). I'm less obsessed with 100% sharp focus throughout anyway and like the creativity of focus that focal plane control fives you. Good job really! :-)

Sean Galbraith
6-Jan-2012, 12:59
Was this the show at Metiver? I saw the show at the ROM and completely missed the private gallery show. I wanted to see the private gallery show as I believe some of the work was with the 65mp back on hasselblad.
What did you notice in quality differences between his 4x5 film capture and the Hasselblad phase capture?

Yup, the Metivier show.

I believe it was the back/camera you mentioned.

The quality differences were very noticeable to me. Jaggies/JPG artifacting/general resolution drop due to enlargements. I noticed the differences at a viewing distance as close as 2 feet, depending on the print. Others, I definitely had to get closer. Perhaps this is too high a standard to expect, but I'm used to being able to virtually put my eye on the paper for his photographs and be blown away by the detail. And these aren't the extreme enlargements that he is doing currently with his Spanish dry farming series that were at MOCCA (which if I had to guess, I would also guess was digital.. but at the print sizes of those, it might not make a difference).

I should note that it wasn't noted on the labels which were digital and which were film, so I could be mistaken... but I'm reasonably certain I could tell. My non-photographer friends who joined me could also tell there was something different about some of the prints.

Incidentally, at the Metivier show, my favourite images were the degraded T55 test shots from the Shipbreaking series. Those were great.

bob carnie
6-Jan-2012, 13:18
I kick myself for not seeing this show.
Was the imagery of Texas oilfields? If so not only did he introduce the new back into his workflow but he was working a lot of the images from a helicoptor. I wonder if there was some inherent shake that you were noticing. I am seeing Phase back files all the time here and not noticing a lot of chatter/artifacting.

The China show at Metiver was when I first saw his film - enlarger prints side by side to his scan chromira - prints.. At that show I could not tell which print was made by which method. Now he is adding a new wrinkle.




Yup, the Metivier show.

I believe it was the back/camera you mentioned.

The quality differences were very noticeable to me. Jaggies/JPG artifacting/general resolution drop due to enlargements. I noticed the differences at a viewing distance as close as 2 feet, depending on the print. Others, I definitely had to get closer. Perhaps this is too high a standard to expect, but I'm used to being able to virtually put my eye on the paper for his photographs and be blown away by the detail. And these aren't the extreme enlargements that he is doing currently with his Spanish dry farming series that were at MOCCA (which if I had to guess, I would also guess was digital.. but at the print sizes of those, it might not make a difference).

I should note that it wasn't noted on the labels which were digital and which were film, so I could be mistaken... but I'm reasonably certain I could tell. My non-photographer friends who joined me could also tell there was something different about some of the prints.

Incidentally, at the Metivier show, my favourite images were the degraded T55 test shots from the Shipbreaking series. Those were great.

Sean Galbraith
6-Jan-2012, 19:05
I kick myself for not seeing this show.
Was the imagery of Texas oilfields? If so not only did he introduce the new back into his workflow but he was working a lot of the images from a helicoptor. I wonder if there was some inherent shake that you were noticing. I am seeing Phase back files all the time here and not noticing a lot of chatter/artifacting.

The China show at Metiver was when I first saw his film - enlarger prints side by side to his scan chromira - prints.. At that show I could not tell which print was made by which method. Now he is adding a new wrinkle.

There were sorta 3 shows in one:
- Shipbreaking T55
- BP Oil Spill photos
- Some shots from the Oil series

The BP Oil Spill aerial shots weren't too "bad" (and this is definitely a relative term when speaking of a master's work)... the complex patterns of the water helped hide the resolution drops. But it still didn't have the same detail at the same viewing distance as what I think were the film shots. There was a shot of Oil Rocks in Azerbaijan that didn't have a lot of fine details where it was very noticeable (perhaps this is the main difference?).

I don't think I've seen any prints of his that weren't Chromira.

I saw a documentary on him that included footage of him hanging out the side of a helicopter over the LA freeways shooting with his Linhof Technica handheld and Fuji Quickloads. I was really impressed. The resulting shots were in the Metevier show, and they looked amazing.

Sean Galbraith
6-Jan-2012, 19:07
Of course, it is also possible that judging a giant print from a distance of a few inches is really asking too much. :-)

John NYC
6-Jan-2012, 20:18
Of course, it is also possible that judging a giant print from a distance of a few inches is really asking too much. :-)

Possibly.

One thing I can say is the quality of the prints in the current "New Photography 2011" show at the MOMA is atrocious for the most part. People seem to be using DSLRs and blowing them up poster size, but taking Stephen Shore type images and expecting the same effect on the viewer of Shore's barely enlarged 8x10s. Looks low quality. I can't believe some of this stuff is in there.

Perhaps they need either 8x10 or and IQ 180 :-) ... or maybe since they made it into the MOMA with half a dozen images even though they have jpeg artifacts and jagged edges, perhaps not.

bob carnie
7-Jan-2012, 06:30
The show that was at the ROM during contact had a lot of his enlarger prints, there were many older series images .
Hopefully he will have a large show in Contact that contain images from the phase (I believe its the 65mb version) We have a 40mb phase at our studio and my business partner is itching to upgrade the Hasselblad system and it would be nice to see a series of images by a good artist to evaluate the system.(very expensive proposition)
I am very familiar with Ed's work going back to the mid 80's

Sean Galbraith
7-Jan-2012, 06:53
Then I guess I have seen some of his enlarger prints. :-) The ROM show was excellent.

bob carnie
7-Jan-2012, 07:10
Yes I am pretty sure you did.
I liked his China show much better and of course his big show at the AGO a few years back.
The ship breaking yard photos in the AGO were suspect on the corners* they were enlarger prints*, but then I saw future prints where the prints were much better, and I believe they were high resolution scans and Chromiras.
He has had a lot of printers over the years, I think over 10 and some of them were better than the others. With enlarger mural work if the printer is not top rate problems can creep in that working with small prints will not show.
I felt the ROM show was almost thrown together from his archives, to make a story-line which left me a bit confused or not reach the overall theme. But I can not be critical as it was pretty amazing compared to mere mortals.
Its great to see a local photographer move his work around the way he does.

Then I guess I have seen some of his enlarger prints. :-) The ROM show was excellent.

Brian Ellis
7-Jan-2012, 07:15
Possibly.

One thing I can say is the quality of the prints in the current "New Photography 2011" show at the MOMA is atrocious for the most part. People seem to be using DSLRs and blowing them up poster size, but taking Stephen Shore type images and expecting the same effect on the viewer of Shore's barely enlarged 8x10s. Looks low quality. I can't believe some of this stuff is in there.

Perhaps they need either 8x10 or and IQ 180 :-) ... or maybe since they made it into the MOMA with half a dozen images even though they have jpeg artifacts and jagged edges, perhaps not.

Or perhaps technical quality wasn't the point of the work. I went to the MOMA web site to see some of these photographs with "jpeg artifacts and jagged edges." As you know, there are six photographers featured in the exhibit. One, Moyra Davey, uses film so there certainly were no jpeg artifacts in her images. I couldn't tell in a few minutes of looking what the others use and didn't care enough to spend any time searching. But reading about the photographs it's pretty obvious that technical quality wasn't a goal of these photographers. For example, Doug Rickard makes photographs of images shown on his computer screen - not a source intended to produce technical excellence. Zhang Dali "joins archival source material with their altered counterparts used as propaganda in Maoist China." It's not surprising that there would be a jagged edge or two in work based on old propaganda photographs.

If you were looking for technical quality in this kind of work it seems to me you missed the point of the exhibit. In fact from what I could tell about it from the MOMA web site, it's probably fair to say that technical perfection would have detracted from most of it.

John NYC
7-Jan-2012, 07:58
Or perhaps technical quality wasn't the point of the work. I went to the MOMA web site to see some of these photographs with "jpeg artifacts and jagged edges."

If you were looking for technical quality in this kind of work it seems to me you pretty much missed the point of the exhibit. In fact from what I could tell about it from the MOMA web site, it's probably fair to say that technical perfection would have detracted from most of it.

I think you have outdone yourself, Brian. You went to the Website? Wow. Let's see, I go to the MOMA in person at least once a week for five years now. Often I go back many times to the same exhibit. I've seen this exhibit six times now in person.

I don't think I missed the point of the exhibit. I am commenting on one aspect of the work displayed (and I purposefully didn't mention the one artist in particular I am commenting on by name, but I did describe the work), and that is the technical quality of the prints, which you yourself can't see on the website. Before you go arguing with me about how the low technical quality of some of the work impacts the viewer's impression of it, you might want to get over here to New York and see it. I have a guest pass, so if you make it here, give me a holler.

Brian Ellis
7-Jan-2012, 08:44
I think you have outdone yourself, Brian. You went to the Website? Wow. Let's see, I go to the MOMA in person at least once a week for five years now. Often I go back many times to the same exhibit. I've seen this exhibit six times now in person.

I don't think I missed the point of the exhibit. I am commenting on one aspect of the work displayed (and I purposefully didn't mention the one artist in particular I am commenting on by name, but I did describe the work), and that is the technical quality of the prints, which you yourself can't see on the website. Before you go arguing with me about how the low technical quality of some of the work impacts the viewer's impression of it, you might want to get over here to New York and see it. I have a guest pass, so if you make it here, give me a holler.

You got me. I don't go to MOMA at least once a week. And your seeing the original photographs in your many visits vs my looking on a web site would be very relevant if I were disputing your description of the technical quality of the photographs.

But I'm not. I'm perfectly happy to agree that the technical quality isn't up to 8x10 standards. My point was that it doesn't matter, technical excellence isn't an important aspect of this type work. So jpeg artifacts and jagged edges are irrelevant.

paulr
7-Jan-2012, 08:51
I think you have outdone yourself, Brian. You went to the Website? Wow. Let's see, I go to the MOMA in person at least once a week for five years now. Often I go back many times to the same exhibit. I've seen this exhibit six times now in person.

I don't think Brian's comments are out of line. The whole discussion begs the question, "what defines technical quality in prints?"

Once upon a time there were accepted, guild-like standards. Like what Ansel preaches in The Print. But these standards always bring a raft of assumptions about what the art is for to begin with. Much of photography done since the 1960s challenges these assumptions, in one way or another. It's based on different ideas about what a photograph might be for.

I think there's only one important question concerning print quality: "how does the print serve the underlying vision?" Blanket statements about attrocious print quality don't generally sound like a response to that question.

John NYC
7-Jan-2012, 09:48
But I'm not. I'm perfectly happy to agree that the technical quality isn't up to 8x10 standards. My point was that it doesn't matter, technical excellence isn't an important aspect of this type work. So jpeg artifacts and jagged edges are irrelevant.

You missed my point. I am not saying the work (or all work) should have 8x10 quality. In the cases of some of this work, it is my humble opinion that the impact does in fact suffer based on the fact that the prints are blown up too large to print well. It is not irrelevant. It cheapens its impact. Some of this work would have been more successful to me if it were printed well at 11x14 instead of badly at 20x30.

I don't give a flip what medium an artist shoots on, but knowing the limits of the tools of the trade is important, I believe.

For what it is worth, the best photography currently in the MOMA in my opinion (and all of it is not of high 8x10 technical quality -- on purpose) is the work of this woman below. She also has huge blown up prints that are not 8x10 quality, but they work and don't lessen the impact of the point of the message (there is caption text included in these particular ones also). She also has some of the largest prints hanging in the museum at this point that are of high technical quality, because in that one case, you can see that having it lower quality would have lessened the impact. To me she is a great artist... knows when to use what tool and know how to use all of them, but even more so is a relevant and insightful thinker and has an individual voice of her own.

http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1148

John NYC
7-Jan-2012, 09:49
I think there's only one important question concerning print quality: "how does the print serve the underlying vision?" Blanket statements about attrocious print quality don't generally sound like a response to that question.

See my post above. Indeed it was. I was talking about the technical quality of that work only and how it cheapens its impact.

meerkat
7-Jan-2012, 15:42
One thing I can say is the quality of the prints in the current "New Photography 2011" show at the MOMA is atrocious for the most part. People seem to be using DSLRs and blowing them up poster size, but taking Stephen Shore type images and expecting the same effect on the viewer of Shore's barely enlarged 8x10s. Looks low quality. I can't believe some of this stuff is in there.

When an image fails for a particular viewer, it fails because of that viewer's notions of value and their own perceptions and world view. If an image fails with all viewers then it's considered to have failed as an image. There is then something about the image that doesn't fit within the collective ideal of the social function of images.

On occasion this latter phenomenon gets a 'paradigm shift' as the image is revisited over time. The image is viewed within a new context and becomes appreciated for other reasons aside from its execution. History has shown this to be the case.

'Atrocious' as used in defining 'quality' is a subjective and loaded word. If used in the context of the 'quality' of a photograph, then the absolute nature of a photograph should first be defined. And outside of a scientific definition of its physical nature, its qualitative definition is highly subjective and therefore suspect due to the values and perceptions of the individual(s) defining it.

John NYC
7-Jan-2012, 16:20
When an image fails for a particular viewer, it fails because of that viewer's notions of value and their own perceptions and world view. If an image fails with all viewers then it's considered to have failed as an image. There is then something about the image that doesn't fit within the collective ideal of the social function of images.

That is one way that images can fail or succeed. It isn't necessarily the only way.


'Atrocious' as used in defining 'quality' is a subjective and loaded word. If used in the context of the 'quality' of a photograph, then the absolute nature of a photograph should first be defined. And outside of a scientific definition of its physical nature, its qualitative definition is highly subjective and therefore suspect due to the values and perceptions of the individual(s) defining it.

One definition of "atrocious" is simply "Of a very poor quality" and that is how I am using it in this case. Also, in a similar but opposite way, people use words like "brilliant" and most people don't get confused if they have any sensitivity to cultural differences in language use.

But to the larger point, I am so far the only person who has seen the prints I am specifically talking about, so I am not going to continue to argue with people who have not seen them. It's ridiculous.

Go look at the ones I'm talking about that are done in the loose vein of the new topographics and tell me what you think about the print quality and if it actually does have the same effect on you as it does on me. You are entitled to your opinion if you disagree with me, but after seeing them six times, I don't think you are going to change my mind about how they affect me as an individual viewer. I have given them due time in looking at them and my opinion, even if you don't end up agreeing with me after you see them, is a very considered one.

meerkat
7-Jan-2012, 19:45
That is one way that images can fail or succeed. It isn't necessarily the only way.

One definition of "atrocious" is simply "Of a very poor quality" and that is how I am using it in this case. Also, in a similar but opposite way, people use words like "brilliant" and most people don't get confused if they have any sensitivity to cultural differences in language use.

But to the larger point, I am so far the only person who has seen the prints I am specifically talking about, so I am not going to continue to argue with people who have not seen them. It's ridiculous.

Go look at the ones I'm talking about that are done in the loose vein of the new topographics and tell me what you think about the print quality and if it actually does have the same effect on you as it does on me. You are entitled to your opinion if you disagree with me, but after seeing them six times, I don't think you are going to change my mind about how they affect me as an individual viewer. I have given them due time in looking at them and my opinion, even if you don't end up agreeing with me after you see them, is a very considered one.

Hi John: just for the record, this wasn't necessarily a disagreement from me, but an observation about a phenomenon that has been ongoing in the art world (I purposefully left your name off the quote I used in my post so that it did not seem personal.)

We all know it's been part of the dialectic since day one. It's an interesting one indeed, albeit a bit frayed and worn. Defining what is of value and what is not seems the eternal issue (either from the content side and/or the execution side.) And yes, in a contemporary society (and with a market driven art industry) it is about defining value. It doesn't matter whether it's the curator, the art critic, or the person on the street. There has to be a 'value choice' made somewhere. And in this instance, Leers' value choice is in opposition of yours (and no doubt many others, too.)

Speaking of the New Topographics... remember that Baltz used high contrast Techpan in 35mm for his part of that body of work. It was initially looked at in disdain by the modernist 'photography-as-art' landscape photographers (granted the prints by all the participants of the NT exhibition were of 'high' quality. To do otherwise would have distracted from the whole point of NT; it was of course a critique of the content of 'grand landscape photography-as-art.' ) And things have changed since 1975. Artists have since recreated the grand landscape ideal with various materials and a wide range of 'print quality.' Some of it succeeded, some not. (btw, I took an independent study with Baltz in grad school, he's a really great guy... despite his incessant chain smoking :) )

Anyway, this is a type of dialogue that's long in the tooth. Perhaps an interesting way of discussing it would have been not to condemn its 'atrociousness' but to open a dialogue about defining this style of production and where it might fit in one's own photographic agenda, and what Dan Leers might have been attempting with New Photography 2011.

meerkat
7-Jan-2012, 20:07
That is one way that images can fail or succeed. It isn't necessarily the only way.


fwiw, the "the collective ideal of the social function of images" includes a social concept of a 'certain' quality of production in all art, photography included. Hence the very common remarks by the viewer about the 'craft' and 'proper execution' of the artwork and the level of 'value' it brings to the work. Because as a collective society we regard 'art' production as a particular type of skill. And if that perception we have of 'skill' reveals that a lack of 'skill' has failed the work, then it fails the "collective ideal" and we will dismiss it as not holding value. And then the big question arises: is this a correct way of approaching art and determining its worthiness?

paulr
7-Jan-2012, 20:23
John, I suspect that at least a few of us were thrown by your phrase "attrocious quality," which suggests some kind of immuteable technical standards. I gather you didn't intend it this way.

FWIW I breezed through MoMA last week; mostly checked out De Kooning but agree that Iveković was great. I'll go back this week to check out the new photography before it closes.

John NYC
8-Jan-2012, 00:01
Anyway, this is a type of dialogue that's long in the tooth. Perhaps an interesting way of discussing it would have been not to condemn its 'atrociousness' but to open a dialogue about defining this style of production and where it might fit in one's own photographic agenda, and what Dan Leers might have been attempting with New Photography 2011.

Have you seen the prints in person?

John NYC
8-Jan-2012, 00:04
John, I suspect that at least a few of us were thrown by your phrase "attrocious quality," which suggests some kind of immuteable technical standards. I gather you didn't intend it this way.

FWIW I breezed through MoMA last week; mostly checked out De Kooning but agree that Iveković was great. I'll go back this week to check out the new photography before it closes.

Will be curious to hear your views on it.

If anyone is unsure if I am afraid of lo-fi work, please have no fear... and follow my tumblr stream of iPhone photos. I am addicted to just more than 8x10: http://johninnewyork.tumblr.com

meerkat
8-Jan-2012, 02:05
Have you seen the prints in person?

No, and I won't make the 2011 MOMA New Photography. I have seen many of the previous ones. As you know I live in Los Angeles (and represented in "This Side of Paradise: Body and Landscape in Los Angeles Photographs, 1865-2008") I won't be in NYC until March, so much too late for the 2011 version unfortunately.

I have looked at the reviews (but saw nothing in ArtForum, etc..) There was something in the NYT and the New Yorker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/arts/design/new-photography-2011-features-6-artists-at-moma-review.html

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2011/09/new-photography-moma.html

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/events/art/new-photography-2011-museum-of-modern-art-art

Nothing mentioned about any technical problems or print quality issues with the work, and not in any layperson's web reviews either. http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-photography-2011-moma.html

NY Art Magazine had a piece: http://www.nyartsmagazine.com/curated/new-photography-2011-opens-at-moma

And so did Time magazine and PDN. But none were really reviews and were basically announcements (MOMA press releases.)

Although American Photo did interview Dan Leers: http://www.americanphotomag.com/article/2011/10/wall-new-photography-2011-moma

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/09/27/art-and-the-outside-world-momas-new-photography/#1

http://www.pdnphotooftheday.com/2011/11/11898#more-11898

nonuniform
8-Jan-2012, 02:41
I wish I could see this show. I studied with Stephen Shore, and he had such a lasting impact that's taken me years to shed!

As I recall, the Uncommon Places prints were quite a bit bigger than 8x10, but of course held their detail like nothing other than 8x10 film.

It's interesting to note that Shore shoots digital now (or at least did as of a couple of years ago).


Possibly.

One thing I can say is the quality of the prints in the current "New Photography 2011" show at the MOMA is atrocious for the most part. People seem to be using DSLRs and blowing them up poster size, but taking Stephen Shore type images and expecting the same effect on the viewer of Shore's barely enlarged 8x10s. Looks low quality. I can't believe some of this stuff is in there.

Perhaps they need either 8x10 or and IQ 180 :-) ... or maybe since they made it into the MOMA with half a dozen images even though they have jpeg artifacts and jagged edges, perhaps not.

John NYC
8-Jan-2012, 12:50
No, and I won't make the 2011 MOMA New Photography. I have seen many of the previous ones. As you know I live in Los Angeles (and represented in "This Side of Paradise: Body and Landscape in Los Angeles Photographs, 1865-2008") I won't be in NYC until March, so much too late for the 2011 version unfortunately.

I have looked at the reviews (but saw nothing in ArtForum, etc..) There was something in the NYT and the New Yorker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/arts/design/new-photography-2011-features-6-artists-at-moma-review.html

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/photobooth/2011/09/new-photography-moma.html

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/events/art/new-photography-2011-museum-of-modern-art-art

Nothing mentioned about any technical problems or print quality issues with the work, and not in any layperson's web reviews either. http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-photography-2011-moma.html

NY Art Magazine had a piece: http://www.nyartsmagazine.com/curated/new-photography-2011-opens-at-moma

And so did Time magazine and PDN. But none were really reviews and were basically announcements (MOMA press releases.)

Although American Photo did interview Dan Leers: http://www.americanphotomag.com/article/2011/10/wall-new-photography-2011-moma

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/09/27/art-and-the-outside-world-momas-new-photography/#1

http://www.pdnphotooftheday.com/2011/11/11898#more-11898

You probably just could have stopped with "No, and I won't make the 2011 MOMA New Photography." But you decided that you'd couch your argument squarely in the appeal to accomplishment fallacy. And then go on to make some pretty obvious argument from authority fallacy examples, as well as the hasty generalization fallacy.

Since you are here -- whoever you are since you won't come out and say it yet even in your private message to me -- what I personally would find more valuable is talking about something that you know better than anyone else and that I definitely could learn from. And that would be showing us some of your work and giving us some insight on how you work, what is important to you, the types of decisions you make, what drives you to create the work you do, etc.. THAT is something I would be very interested in hearing. In another thread, we are all lamenting that a lot of the notable people who used to post on this forum are gone, and it has made the forum a less rich place to be. I'd love it if more people like yourself engaged here and talked about their own work.

meerkat
8-Jan-2012, 17:30
You probably just could have stopped with "No, and I won't make the 2011 MOMA New Photography." But you decided that you'd couch your argument squarely in the appeal to accomplishment fallacy. And then go on to make some pretty obvious argument from authority fallacy examples, as well as the hasty generalization fallacy.

Since you are here -- whoever you are since you won't come out and say it yet even in your private message to me -- what I personally would find more valuable is talking about something that you know better than anyone else and that I definitely could learn from. And that would be showing us some of your work and giving us some insight on how you work, what is important to you, the types of decisions you make, what drives you to create the work you do, etc.. THAT is something I would be very interested in hearing. In another thread, we are all lamenting that a lot of the notable people who used to post on this forum are gone, and it has made the forum a less rich place to be. I'd love it if more people like yourself engaged here and talked about their own work.

Hi John, just to make clear: this wasn't meant to be a debate over your personal opinion of a body of work in an exhibition. Sorry if it sounded as such. Your opinions are as valid as any, whether it's from a professional critic or a layperson. And I mean that sincerely. I am interested (and invested) in the perennial dialogue of what constitutes value in art, and how that value is established (esp by those 'in charge,' i.e., the professional art critics.) And how it is established over time and the paradigm shifts that occur in all mediums, particularly photography.

I mentioned a collection of photography (in published form) that represents my work primarily because I hoped those familiar with that exhibition and book would realize it's about 'conventional' photography, and not necessarily 'new photography' (at least in the sense that MOMA has represented these annual 'new photography' exhibitions.) That hopefully roots me in the arena of 'conventional' photographic production and with a vested interest in the 'quality' of the final print, etc.. Which therefore means that these issues of 'technical expertise' are of concern to me, yet on the other hand I'm also receptive to alternative approaches. And I assumed you posted a link to a body of your own work that was meant to imply the same. And so I responded in kind.

Dismissing a body of work because it doesn't conform to my personal agenda, my aesthetic sensibilities, or my current philosophies of my own work, I feel is non-productive. At least for me personally. And when I see comments about the 'atrociousness' of the execution of a body of work, it sparks the dialogue for me (and despite it being 'long in the tooth' it is still a dialogue that continues.) I doubt that either the artist or the curator does not know the difference between a 'conventionally well executed print' and one that has 'jpeg artifacts' and 'jagged edges.' And that promotes investigating the execution of said prints. Which in turn promotes inquiry about this whole notion of what constitutes 'value' in art production and its role as commodity (whether in public display or in private collection.) And who establishes that 'value.' And yes, I posted the links to reviews of the exhibit. I was curious if the technical issues you pointed out were being discussed elsewhere in respect to the exhibit's reception (and I was sincerely curious.)

But again, I'm belaboring a dialogue that has been going on for centuries. And so I'll stop now :)

I still would prefer not to identify myself. I gave a reference to my work and I'll leave it at that for now. My work is in the 'vernacular pictorial' or 'critical realist' camp (as defined by Benjamin Buchloh) You may find this essay of his interesting (The Politics of Representation, pg 17): http://books.google.com/books?id=JfM8VxJkqgEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

And perhaps this article by Hilde Van Gelder: http://www.imageandnarrative.be/inarchive/Images_de_l_invisible/Vangelder.htm

Needless to say, technical 'quality' is paramount in this genre of realism, as it's important not to distract from content although any work will always be read within its particular venue, its physical representation (print size, print type, framing choices, etc.), and titling and captioning, etc.. As you well know, the connotations from all these factors are deeply imbedded. Which clearly had an affect on your own personal interpretation and response to the current New Photography exhibit.

John NYC
8-Jan-2012, 21:40
Hi John, just to make clear: this wasn't meant to be a debate over your personal opinion of a body of work in an exhibition. Sorry if it sounded as such. Your opinions are as valid as any, whether it's from a professional critic or a layperson. And I mean that sincerely. I am interested (and invested) in the perennial dialogue of what constitutes value in art, and how that value is established (esp by those 'in charge,' i.e., the professional art critics.) And how it is established over time and the paradigm shifts that occur in all mediums, particularly photography.

I mentioned a collection of photography (in published form) that represents my work primarily because I hoped those familiar with that exhibition and book would realize it's about 'conventional' photography, and not necessarily 'new photography' (at least in the sense that MOMA has represented these annual 'new photography' exhibitions.) That hopefully roots me in the arena of 'conventional' photographic production and with a vested interest in the 'quality' of the final print, etc.. Which therefore means that these issues of 'technical expertise' are of concern to me, yet on the other hand I'm also receptive to alternative approaches. And I assumed you posted a link to a body of your own work that was meant to imply the same. And so I responded in kind.

Dismissing a body of work because it doesn't conform to my personal agenda, my aesthetic sensibilities, or my current philosophies of my own work, I feel is non-productive. At least for me personally. And when I see comments about the 'atrociousness' of the execution of a body of work, it sparks the dialogue for me (and despite it being 'long in the tooth' it is still a dialogue that continues.) I doubt that either the artist or the curator does not know the difference between a 'conventionally well executed print' and one that has 'jpeg artifacts' and 'jagged edges.' And that promotes investigating the execution of said prints. Which in turn promotes inquiry about this whole notion of what constitutes 'value' in art production and its role as commodity (whether in public display or in private collection.) And who establishes that 'value.' And yes, I posted the links to reviews of the exhibit. I was curious if the technical issues you pointed out were being discussed elsewhere in respect to the exhibit's reception (and I was sincerely curious.)

But again, I'm belaboring a dialogue that has been going on for centuries. And so I'll stop now :)

I still would prefer not to identify myself. I gave a reference to my work and I'll leave it at that for now. My work is in the 'vernacular pictorial' or 'critical realist' camp (as defined by Benjamin Buchloh) You may find this essay of his interesting (The Politics of Representation, pg 17): http://books.google.com/books?id=JfM8VxJkqgEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

And perhaps this article by Hilde Van Gelder: http://www.imageandnarrative.be/inarchive/Images_de_l_invisible/Vangelder.htm

Needless to say, technical 'quality' is paramount in this genre of realism, as it's important not to distract from content although any work will always be read within its particular venue, its physical representation (print size, print type, framing choices, etc.), and titling and captioning, etc.. As you well know, the connotations from all these factors are deeply imbedded. Which clearly had an affect on your own personal interpretation and response to the current New Photography exhibit.

Fair enough. And well said.

federico9001
7-Feb-2012, 17:45
the large format certainly wins for spatiality ever - compared to the best MF digital systems.

Greg Miller
7-Feb-2012, 20:03
It should, but reality may be different.

Come back from shooting a basketball game and have about 700 frames to convert from RAW to Jpegs after a quick edit to dump the junk.

RAW conversion takes time and the the computer groans and moans for an hour or so as it is doing the conversions. During this time I am checking exposures and tweaking for conversion, doing a few at a time as gym lights strobing change color and even exposure a bit during the few hours shooting.

Takes a lot of memory and computer space but if the larger file sizes will give me better quality to sell and publish, it is generally worth it.

Seems every time you turn around the computer needs to be updated or replaced just to run the basics... not like the old Osborne or Kaypro tho I don't think they have a plug in to work with the newer programs anyhow.

But the D800 is not targeted to sports shooters. It is targeted to landscape & studio photographers who don't shoot 700 frames in one session. Sports shooters are much more likely to be using the 12MP D3S or D700.

Corran
7-Feb-2012, 21:35
Hmm, I'm using a computer I built 3 years ago and converting all my edited files from RAW to jpeg (from a D700) takes all of 5 minutes. And I only have 4 gigs of RAM.

I won't make any biased statements against the Mac platform but uh...I'm thinking it :D

Brian C. Miller
8-Feb-2012, 10:39
Water cooled CPU for a 36 mpx camera (that doesn't exist)? You need a new computer guy.
(emphasis added)
B&H Photo: D800 SLR Digital Camera (Body Only) (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/842926-REG/Nikon_D800_D_800_SLR_Digital_Camera.html), $3000, 36Mp
The non-existence of Nikon.

Water cooling is really great for CPU overclocking.

Brian Ellis
8-Feb-2012, 10:52
(emphasis added)
B&H Photo: D800 SLR Digital Camera (Body Only) (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/842926-REG/Nikon_D800_D_800_SLR_Digital_Camera.html), $3000, 36Mp
The non-existence of Nikon.

Water cooling is really great for CPU overclocking.

I'm not sure what point you're making in your quote of my message and your "non-existence" comment but the 36mpx D800 was announced a couple days ago. The message of mine that you quote was sent back in December of last year.