8x10 - Digital, redux

[Brian C. Miller]

Would it be out of line to get practical? Anyone in NYC using an 8x10? It would be fun to do some side by side comparisons and compare results in prints.

Paul, aside from a friendly get-togeter for photographs and coffee, what would the test cover that wasn't covered in Tim Parkin's test? Or maybe Drew and Rick could come up with a series of test targets and such that would be more interesting/better than what was done before.

Here's what I propose: Let's make this a group affair! Everybody with an 8x10 will go and make photographs of similar things at similar distances. To make sure that everything can be synchronized later, include a ruler or a yardstick in the photograph. For instance, a macro scene at a particular distance or width or magnification, like 1:3. Things across the street. Things down the block. Full-length portrait. Etc. With enough "reference" photos we should be able to build up a comparison library, like the scanner test. Then as the digital technology changes, it can be compared to the reference library.

Here's the 8x10 lenses I have (mounted):
APO-Macro-Sironar 180mm f/5.6
Nikkor-W 240mm f/5.6
Fujinon-C 300mm f/8.5
Fujinon-W 360mm f/6.3
Ektar 14in f/6.3
APO-Ronar 480mm f/9
(I also have lenses that are adapted for modern shutters)

I am absolutely satisified with the registration of my Cambo's GG to the holders I have, no problem there. As for "old" lenses, I say bring them on! Rapid Rectilinears are a good design!

Now, since this is going to be a print-to-print comparison, we'll need somebody to print these out. I don't have an 8x10 darkroom, so somebody else will have to do the printing. The printing could be distributed among several people. The printes don't necessarily need to be wall sized, but various enlargement magnifications should be covered.

[paulr]

Paul, aside from a friendly get-togeter for photographs and coffee, what would the test cover that wasn't covered in Tim Parkin's test?

For me the point would just be to look at actual prints with our own eyes.

I'm satisfied with the results of Parkin's test, although I think some more emphasis could have been put on what it all means in the real world, taking depth of field and diffraction into account. I'm not at all interested in duplicating his efforts or doing something so rigorous.

I've been scratching my head comparing my 4x5 prints to my dslr prints. I've only had a high end dslr for a few months and a good printer for a few weeks, so I'm late to the party. I'm going to make some crops from big enlargements to compare the two cameras on an even footing.

My current darkroom prints don't hold up at all. My 18" wide prints from the dslr are subjectively sharper and more detailed than my 11" wide prints from 4x5. I think this is mostly because of the secondary optical system of the enlarging lens.

[timparkin]

For me the point would just be to look at actual prints with our own eyes.

I'm satisfied with the results of Parkin's test, although I think some more emphasis could have been put on what it all means in the real world, taking depth of field and diffraction into account. I'm not at all interested in duplicating his efforts or doing something so rigorous.

I've been scratching my head comparing my 4x5 prints to my dslr prints. I've only had a high end dslr for a few months and a good printer for a few weeks, so I'm late to the party. I'm going to make some crops from big enlargements to compare the two cameras on an even footing.

My current darkroom prints don't hold up at all. My 18" wide prints from the dslr are subjectively sharper and more detailed than my 11" wide prints from 4x5. I think this is mostly because of the secondary optical system of the enlarging lens.

Hi Folks - just a quick. I tried not to draw too many conclusions with the test to make sure that people could draw their own conclusions. However I did get a bunch of photographers to write their own conclusions and those conclusions are here..

Here's my own comments...

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/camera-test-editors-commentary/

and here's the feedback from the bunch of photographers mentioned..

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison-comments/

We took depth of field and diffraction into account by shooting a real world scene outside in the wind (and it was quite windy - see the video at the bottom of the main test webpage).

The results from this did show a reduction in detail captured but it was a lot less that people make out. We did do three absolutely critical things in my opinion though. We bedded down the first, 5 series gitzo tripod into sold earth by 'heeling' someholes and embedding the spikes in them. We then used a second tripod to brace the camera - however strong your single tripod is it can't stop camera flex or wobble - and then shielded the camera from the wind using our bodies. The shielding turned out not to help as much as we thought as we also waited for a gust of wind and took a shot right in the middle of it with no shielding. The difference was neglibible - we may have been lucky though and caught it at a 'velocity minimum' in it's vibration although that's unlikely with a 2 second exposure (I think it was at least that)

Tim

[Brian Ellis]

In another thread Kirk Gittings made the point that in pre-digital days when people saw a technically bad print they didn't blame it on the darkroom process, they blamed it on the photographer/printer. But with digital it often seems to be the other way around. When someone sees a bad print made digitally they tend to blame it on "digital" rather than the photograher/printer.

What you're doing with your "head scratching" seems to me to be kind of a corollary of that phenomenon. In the old days when someone got a new camera or enlarger and were happy with the results they didn't worry about whether the photographs made with the new equipment were better than the old. If they were happy with the new equipment they just used it. You seem to be happy with your new camera and printer, at least in the sense that you think the prints are technically as good or better than those you made in the darkroom. So unless the purpose of your head-scratching is to decide whether to buy an 8x10 camera why worry about comparing prints from 8x10 negatives made by others with your prints? If you like the prints you're making with your new equipment what more do you need to know?

It might be different if you were just starting out in photography and didn't know what a good print looks like. But that's not the case. I've been reading your messages here for years, I know you're extremely knowledgeable and have plenty of experience both with your own work and seeing the work of others, i.e. you know what a good print looks like.

FWIW, I saw Tim Parkins' test results. I always appreciate people who spend the time to do that kind of thing because it's something I'd never do myself. But I ignore it for any practical purposes. I used 8x10 cameras and made contact prints in my darkroom for many years, then for a couple years I scanned my 8x10 negatives and printed them digitally. I've been using a relatively high end digital camera for several years. I'm very happy with the digital camera from a technical standpoint. So I don't really care about what I might find if I started making rigorous comparisons of my old darkroom prints from 8x10 negatives with the prints I now make from my digital camera. I make the prints, I like them (hopefully), at a minimum the technical quality is plenty good enough to serve the aesthetic purpose of the photograph, end of story.

It should go without saying but given the tender sensibilities of a few here whenever anyone suggests there might be anything good about "digital" I'll add that this in no way is intended to criticize film, 8x10 cameras, darkroom printing, or anything related to it. I'm simply questioning what purpose would be served by doing what you've asked about doing.