Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 58 of 58

Thread: Likely Very Naive Question, sheet film then scan to produce a digital print.

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Hattiesburg, MS.
    Posts
    73

    Re: Likely Very Naive Question, sheet film then scan to produce a digital print.

    I mean, other people have said this, but it's nothing like using a digital camera. There are too many unique characteristics of LF film.

    There is no digital camera made, except for large format scanbacks, which have their own problems, that will give you such shallow DoF at normal focal lengths and middling apertures. The ability to do blurred-background portraits in broad daylight with fast film is nice. This is especially true now that most consumer digital cameras are going to sensors even smaller than 35mm-equivalent, usually APS-C or M4/3rds, leading to a situation where you have to use very long lenses and very wide apertures to get good background blur for portraits and closeup photography.

    No camera sensor will naturally produce any of the unique tonal responses that you can get from different combinations of B/W film and a developer/developers. A scanner can capture this, but if the digital element is the thing actually making the image, these unique qualities will be absent. And then don't get me started on color film!

    Most digital sensors are emphatically not optimized for B/W, and with small sensor sizes like you have in digital cameras, the interlacing or whatever becomes noticeable in the loss of resolution. Not so with a scanner, especially given the area of large-format.

    And let's be real--the size of large format is a huge boon. It is so much easier to get a usable enlargement out of a LF negative, photographically or scanning digitally, then out of a small format photo, film or digital.

    So why LF+scan?

    Because it's a cheap way to have some fantastic and desirable photographic characteristics unobtainable with most digital cameras.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Hattiesburg, MS.
    Posts
    73

    Re: Likely Very Naive Question, sheet film then scan to produce a digital print.

    The vast majority of digital shooters would not be involved in photography at all if it wasn't for the instant gratification that digital offers.

    Push a button and bingo there's a photograph on my LCD.

    No skill required. Awesome.
    I don't even shoot digital and I know that that's completely untrue. There's still plenty of room for skill. Every DSLR I've ever seen has aperture priority and manual modes, plus a switch to disable autofocus--remember the last Canon film SLR's from the 90's and early 00's? Same thing. I could make art with one, just like I regularly make art (at least, I think it's art) with a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye that has fixed focus, fixed aperture and fixed speed. Composition is central to art photography--no one is going to care what aperture you were shooting at when they're in the gallery looking at your silver prints. They'll care that it's a crisp image that's well-composed.

    Also, not all photography needs to be high art. Sometimes people just want to take snapshots of their family. Sometimes working photographers just need to take basic wedding photos without worrying about film stock and chemicals.

    Lastly, what does that have to do with LF hybrid photography (film + digital scanner)?

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    4,675

    Re: Likely Very Naive Question, sheet film then scan to produce a digital print.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Digital back on a digital specific view camera can easily achieve traditional view camera movements (perspective control, tilt-shift-swing-rise-drop and....) as needed.

    Does not make rational sense to me to use a sheet film camera to produce a digital data file when high quality digital is easily available.

    ~I'm trying to understand this.~

    Bernice
    My sentiments exactly! A good term for this is direct imaging (versus indirect imaging with scans), and it's what I've done.

    I purchased a Phase One P45+ digital back from Digital Transitions for about twice the price of a good digital camera. Not the case with most refurbished backs, mine had less than 2500 activations, and it came with a year's factory warranty. The price was a bit steep, but it's about 8% of what they were new. Resolution is 39MP from a 24mmX48mm sensor. (That's twice the size of a "full-frame" sensor.) Enough resolution for what I will ever need, this will give me a 16x20 print with some room to spare.

    I use it with an Arca Swiss 6x9 view camera and film lenses. I already had 47mm, 58mm, and 75mm lenses. For wide angle, I found a 35mm Rodenstock f4.5 lens for a quite reasonable price. This lens demonstrates some chromatic aberration, but not enough to worry about. And besides, it can be corrected in Capture One, free software that's available when processing files from Phase One digital backs. (Capture One corresponds to Adobe's Lightroom. It's first rate imaging software.) This lens has huge coverage for a digital back, so for super wide angle, stitching is an option. With lenses of this small focal length, one has to be careful that the back of the lens doesn't interfere with the rear standard of the camera. To avoid this, I have a special "N" standard, Arca ground glass and adapter.

    I'd been working toward this capability for quite a while, so I already had the camera and all but one lens. Still, it was a tad bit expensive, but maybe not quite so bad, when one considers the cost of a good scanner, film, and all the time and frustration that can go into getting decent scans from color negatives.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,804

    Re: Likely Very Naive Question, sheet film then scan to produce a digital print.

    Quote Originally Posted by neil poulsen View Post
    ....I purchased a Phase One P45+ digital back...Resolution is 39MP from a 24mmX48mm sensor...
    The Capture Integration specs say this sensor is 49.1mm x 36.8mm.

  5. #55
    schafphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Posts
    278

    Re: Likely Very Naive Question, sheet film then scan to produce a digital print.

    Indeed, to Sal's point on page 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    For black and white, there's only one possible reason, namely, to take advantage of the extremely long life expectancy exhibited by polyester-based, properly processed and stored negatives. That's why HABS/HAER/HALS is willing to accept inkjet "contact prints" but still requires such negatives.
    I do HABS/HAER/HALS and digital scanning is in the guidelines. So those (few) HABS photographers have a choice of contact prints or scans and "digital print cards" but both are a required part of the HABS workflow. As such, profit/loss/time come into the equation differently than if the photographer is choosing the process based on his/her own finances/time/aesthetics. I have seen/made some shockingly bad analog prints and seen/made some stunning digital prints (and wiza/werza). I continue to make prints for myself in the darkroom and will continue to make scanned negs for $. I'm just lucky that people are paying me to use the big heavy camera instead of the little camera.

    That said, I would RATHER spend my time in the darkroom getting my tongs wet, but the most profitable way to deliver the products my clients need, is digital camera scans of the 5x7 and 4x5 negatives and printing on an Epson desktop printer. But that's a pretty unusual case study knowing how many people are doing HABS work vs. how many people are doing large format for art and fun.

    There's a reason the term "expensive hobby" is redundant ;-) ... digital or analog, our aesthetic makes us do it anyway, for the most part nobody NEEDS a photo to live. Maybe an associated question in this day of Covid-19 is: "Is photography essential?" and for this group: "Is large format photography essential?"

    ~Discuss ;-)
    `
    –Stephen Schafer HABS | HAER | HALS & Architectural Photography | Ventura, California | www.HABSPHOTO.com

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Chapel Hill NC
    Posts
    321

    Re: Likely Very Naive Question, sheet film then scan to produce a digital print.

    I haven't read all the comments to this thread, but wanted to add my two cents worth.

    I think technology of full frame cameras are improving rapidly, and can rival what is obtainable with LF cameras. Perspective correction 35 mm lenses are still somewhat limited and not as capable as movements of a LD camera, but affordable. Nikon introduced in-camera focus stacking for DOF and improved density range. Sony a7r4 has a pixel shift merge in camera function that can increase resolution comparable to 4x5 film. For architecture and large prints of landscapes the digital technology cannot meet the resolution of a 4x5, or larger, film negative. Resolution is the ability to distinguish two points from each other. Thus,, if I were to photograph a cathedral (which I have done) I would want to capture as much detail as possible to produce an expressive print.


    The other case for a LF camera is for making portraits. I have seen very impressive portraits of people that demonstrate to relationship of distance between the subject and the camera, Coupled with brass portrait lenses there is no comparison to capturing with a digital camera.

    Mechanics aside, there are many aesthetic reasons for using LF cameras/film.

    Mike

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tucson AZ
    Posts
    1,822

    Re: Likely Very Naive Question, sheet film then scan to produce a digital print.

    I have to admit I'm thinking seriously about getting a 30 - 40 MP back for my Hasselblad V, I really like the results I get with the 645 but in the end I prefer looking at an IMAGE on a ground glass to looking through a camera at the real world - I find myself working so much differently with the Hassy, or the RB67 or a TLR than with any digicam or DSLR or rangefinder. The image looks different when it's bounded.

    I recently just unearthed (so to speak) a few 5 x 7 negatives from the early 70's and ran them through the IQsmart last night. The sensation of working with them is so much different than working with the images from my Digicams. Are the photos less crisp/sharp? Probably, but there's a much greater sense of texture with the big negatives - the images just feel different to me, particularly for B&W. Less clinical if you will. Could be just me but it feels so much different working with the scans than with the direct capture.
    Having said that, I think the reason I like the 645 digicam better than the Canons is due to the larger pixel size - I think the pixel count is interesting, but bigger pixels feel better to me.

  8. #58
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: Likely Very Naive Question, sheet film then scan to produce a digital print.

    Rationalization really is a powerful thing, and this thread is a prime example of people rationalizing their biases. You want something to be true, and, by darned, you'll find something to justify it. Consider confabulation. Psychologists discovered that people come up with reasons for their behavior, and when they don't have one, their subconscious will make a false one up, and the person will consciously think that's why they did so and so. Jonathan Haidt, a research psychological, likens the conscious mind to a lawyer the subconscious hires, and the subconscious doesn't care how its desires are satisfied, just as long as they are.

    Consider x and y. If they are two different things, then there will always be something different about them. That's a necessary truth. One can always point to that difference and say, "That's why I prefer it!"

    Bigger pixels are better? That's bull. I had a D200, and now I have a D600. The D600 has smaller pixels than the D200, but the D600 takes higher quality photos.

    The reason people use a hybrid workflow is that, for their purposes, they find something better about it. Some serious people, people who print for a living, including people who printed both in a darkroom at the highest level, feel that they make better prints with a hybrid workflow than they did in the darkroom. Perhaps they are just rationalizing, but I've seen some of their prints, and they are terrific.

    Why not avoid all the BS. If you want to do something, and it doesn't hurt others, and the opportunity costs are not too great, well, just do it. Wanting to do it, or not do it, is reason enough.
    “You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know

Similar Threads

  1. 5x7 Printing Options (Contact Print? Scan and electronically print?)
    By morecfm in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 27-Dec-2017, 15:03
  2. Scan and process then print v's print from negative
    By 1stormcat in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 24-Jan-2015, 12:40
  3. 8 Foot Print from 617 Film Scan
    By gregmo in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 30-Jul-2013, 15:39
  4. Cost to produce a fine print
    By NER in forum Business
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30-May-2011, 04:12
  5. Who do you use to scan your sheet film in the UK?
    By eddo123 in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 29-Dec-2008, 17:55

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •