Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48

Thread: They say to start with 4x5, but...

  1. #11
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    7,990

    Re: They say to start with 4x5, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by jdk View Post
    The siren song of this 8x10 vs. Phase One comparison is haunting.
    Specifically re 4x5 vs 8x10, you should look at Tim Parkin's earlier comparison too:

    https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...at-vs-digital/

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    5,241

    Re: They say to start with 4x5, but...

    LF is a lot about slowing down. At the price you can’t machine-gun very much. Suggest you slow down right now and do some soul searching. What are you going to be shooting? How “portable” do you want to be? What are you going to do with the e negatives? Contact print or enlarge. Some of these answers may help you gain more insight to decide.

    Regarding “how representative”… it’s the same… just smaller.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,712

    Re: They say to start with 4x5, but...

    Why view camera sheet film, Why 8x10?
    How can or might this sheet film format improve your image goals and intent?

    What needs to be appreciated and fully understood, Sharper, Snappier and all those often sought after image ideals by plenty of photographers often does not result in a more expressive image or image of artistic significance. What makes any image significant, relevant, expressive, enduring tends to be much about content and not Sharper, Snappier and ...

    Happened across that same Phase One -vs- 8x10 film comparison years ago, met with a Meh...
    Skip the scanner drum scanner or what ever typically used film to digital image conversion device, replace it with a high quality optical macroscope/microscope with the entry level lowest $ Canon M3 mirrorless to record what is produced by the Wild/Leica macroscope/microscope.. This is a section of 5x7 Ektachrome imaged with a 1950's vintage 14" f9 Goerz APO artar in barrel on a Sinar C with a Sinar shutter at f16.

    At 260x, the STOP sign is easily readable. with no color bleed between the white of the STOP lettering to the red of the sign's body. Resolution is down to the color film grains. The effective print size at 260x would be 1,248 inches or 104 ft x 1,768 inches or 147ft.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Stop_M420.jpg 
Views:	6 
Size:	81.9 KB 
ID:	217750

    Note in that web post article none of the images posted results a clearly readable road sign, thus the Meh...

    This is what a Epson 4990 flat bed scanner might do at it's highest resolution.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SSF_STOP, enp.jpg 
Views:	4 
Size:	20.3 KB 
ID:	217751

    Previously posted:
    https://www.largeformatphotography.i...420-microscope

    Hows does any of this absurd amount of "sharpness-resolution" improve or result in a more expressive image?
    Had the privilege to use some of the very best 8x10 production view camera lenses made (still own a few of them) with the some of the very best view cameras to use these lenses with. Never 8x10 again.. for a very long list of reasons. Film flatness is difficult, camera alignment and precision are no small challenge to achieve, trade off between taking aperture -vs- depth of focus/depth of view is always a tight rope balancing act (smaller the taking aperture-more the optical performance will be degraded). Essentially, larger sheet of film is not always better. Ideal trade-off film size depends on image goals and what needs to be achieved.

    Cost per image is also a factor, seems these days each sheet of color 8x10 runs about $30 USD. Be assured more than a few sheets of film will be flamed before
    moving far enough up the view camera learning curve to where each sheet of film is never wasted. Then there is the cost of 8x10 camera gear. As the popularity of film appears to be on the up-swing these days, many view and believe 8x10 to be the ultimate film size or camera for ? reasons. This has pent up the market for all things 8x10 view camera related. A good 8x10 camera is no longer low cost, typically a low four figures. Similar applies to 8x10 lenses, adding to this the number of good 8x10 lenses were never vastly to begin with. 8x10 had the smallest lens choices during the peak of the sheet film era with 4x5 and 5x7 far out numbering what view camera lenses were made and available. This is due to the user base and market reality of 8x10 being a very costly sheet film format with very real limitations.


    Bernice












    Quote Originally Posted by jdk View Post
    ...exactly how representative is it of 8x10?

    I really would like to jump into a LF system for landscapes. 8x10 (and actually 4x10) is where I am fairly certain I'd like to end up, but I'm having difficulty getting clear answers on some threshold questions. Image quality ("resolution") is really paramount to me; I regularly print at 6-8 feet. The siren song of this 8x10 vs. Phase One comparison is haunting.

    1. My understanding is that

    (from this thread).

    Since larger formats generally require smaller apertures - especially for sufficient DOF - how representative will 4x5 film be of 4x10 or 8x10? Velvia 50 is spec'd around 160 lp/mm, so using the rough 1500 rule you'd have to be shooting at f/8 to avoid the diffraction limit. That is wide open for most lenses...at best one stop down. At what point does the smaller format actually yield technically better results due to these coinciding variables?

    My frustration lies in the upfront cost of an 8x10 system. Cameras are fairly reasonably priced but the good modern lenses run around $5000 when you can find them (ie., the 150mm Schneider f/5.6). Getting real exposed film in my hands to answer these questions seems like it will cost north of $10,000. I'd have no real issue starting with 4x5 if I had a better read on how representative the comparison would be. (I'd also have no problem just diving into 8x10 if I could get better information up front.) Does image quality scale linearly with square inches? Or do these other factors reduce the benefit of increased film size?

    Joe

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    17

    Re: They say to start with 4x5, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    Specifically re 4x5 vs 8x10, you should look at Tim Parkin's earlier comparison too:

    https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...at-vs-digital/
    This is highly interesting...not sure how I missed it.

    Relevantly, they do point out that

    The sharpest aperture on 5x4 was f/16⅔ and on 8x10 was also f/16⅔ - this shouldn't completely surprise us as the most large format lenses perform best at the centre of their image circle at between f/16 and f/22.
    ...which has implications for the 1500 rule I quoted earlier. Although now the accuracy of that rule of thumb has been brought into question.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,712

    Re: They say to start with 4x5, but...

    YES, or why the experience of view camera image making is a LOT more than just all those irrelevant things like "sharpness" and such that is often so admired by Fotographers. Been bitten by all that, with time all that passes or the Fotographer might completely grow out of all that.


    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    LF is a lot about slowing down. At the price you can’t machine-gun very much. Suggest you slow down right now and do some soul searching. What are you going to be shooting? How “portable” do you want to be? What are you going to do with the e negatives? Contact print or enlarge. Some of these answers may help you gain more insight to decide.

    Regarding “how representative”… it’s the same… just smaller.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    17

    Re: They say to start with 4x5, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Why view camera sheet film, Why 8x10?
    Resolution. If someone made a 300MP 2:1 aspect ratio digital camera that I could rent right now, I almost certainly would not be considering this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    What needs to be appreciated and fully understood, Sharper, Snappier and all those often sought after image ideals by plenty of photographers often does not result in a more expressive image or image of artistic significance. What makes any image significant, relevant, expressive, enduring tends to be much about content and not Sharper, Snappier and ...Hows does any of this absurd amount of "sharpness-resolution" improve or result in a more expressive image?
    Don't get caught up in that. Pretend I said I'm doing archival work or anything else that requires the highest degree of clarity and fidelity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Had the privilege to use some of the very best 8x10 production view camera lenses made (still own a few of them) with the some of the very best view cameras to use these lenses with. Never 8x10 again.. for a very long list of reasons. Film flatness is difficult, camera alignment and precision are no small challenge to achieve, trade off between taking aperture -vs- depth of focus/depth of view is always a tight rope balancing act (smaller the taking aperture-more the optical performance will be degraded). Essentially, larger sheet of film is not always better. Ideal trade-off film size depends on image goals and what needs to be achieved.
    I'm assuming this is a vote in favor of 4x5, but largely for practical reasons.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,712

    Re: They say to start with 4x5, but...

    Microscope used yes, but not a good one and a lash up at that. That outfit does not have the optical performance required to reveal what is on film.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	microscope-photos.jpeg 
Views:	15 
Size:	103.9 KB 
ID:	217752


    Wild/ Leica M420 specifically designed to produce photographic images does better and they did not impose film flatness by sandwiching the film between glass.
    Film flatness is a absolute requirement.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	M420.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	44.8 KB 
ID:	217753

    Or use a microscope like this Leica Ergolux with the needed lighting set up and objectives.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Leitz Ergolux.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	39.7 KB 
ID:	217755


    Bernice

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,712

    Re: They say to start with 4x5, but...

    Gonna take a LOT more than 300MP to equal film done proper. Then there is the digital color question. Mandated by the current crop of single imager cameras with a Bayer array to produce color. From previous discussion, start at post# 24.
    https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-and-now/page3

    Yes indeediee on 4x5 for a very long list of reasons.


    Bernice



    Quote Originally Posted by jdk View Post
    Resolution. If someone made a 300MP 2:1 aspect ratio digital camera that I could rent right now, I almost certainly would not be considering this.



    Don't get caught up in that. Pretend I said I'm doing archival work or anything else that requires the highest degree of clarity and fidelity.



    I'm assuming this is a vote in favor of 4x5, but largely for practical reasons.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    17

    Re: They say to start with 4x5, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Then there is the digital color question. Mandated by the current crop of single imager cameras with a Bayer array to produce color.
    Bayer filters are also the bane of astrophotographers. We use monochromatic cameras with RGB filters (among others) that we combine in software. So that benefit is definitely not lost on me.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,712

    Re: They say to start with 4x5, but...

    Matter of time before some _?_ introduces a three color_three solid state imager camera. It has been done before in the video world. Why this has not happened yet in the current digital camera world is surprising.


    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by jdk View Post
    Bayer filters are also the bane of astrophotographers. We use monochromatic cameras with RGB filters (among others) that we combine in software. So that benefit is definitely not lost on me.

Similar Threads

  1. Where to start? Is it too late to start? Beginner seeking advice.
    By strayblank in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 23-Mar-2018, 14:01
  2. Where to start? Is it too late to start? Beginner seeking advice.
    By senderoaburrido in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 1-Nov-2015, 19:13
  3. New Start
    By Johhn D Castle in forum Introductions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 6-Oct-2007, 10:52
  4. If you had to start new...
    By Scott Knowles in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 30-Jan-2007, 17:24
  5. How Much to Start Out
    By Suk Jung Choo in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 30-Mar-2002, 08:32

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
  •