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/
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/
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.
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.
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.
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
This is highly interesting...not sure how I missed it.
Relevantly, they do point out that
...which has implications for the 1500 rule I quoted earlier. Although now the accuracy of that rule of thumb has been brought into question.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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Or use a microscope like this Leica Ergolux with the needed lighting set up and objectives.
Bernice
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
Bookmarks