8x10 vs digital (a gallery comparison for your own eyes)
Are you going through Vegas to shoot landscape in the great SW?
If you get a chance maybe check out Rodney Lough Jr's fine art landscape gallery in the new state of the art "City Center" in the heart of "the strip." Good chance you will come away with your head spinning with inspiration to shoot and maybe even be propelled to take your landscape photography to the next level.
Rodney is a fellow Oregonian (I met him in Oregon as we used the same photography lab) who shoots almost exclusively 8x10 (with a few P65 stitched images). In the past I had the privilege of viewing some of his 8x10 transparencies, but had not ever seen his finished landscape gallery prints. I have also had the great privilege of viewing (and scrutinizing) a host of world class fine art landscape printers work (such as Ken Duncan, Christopher Burkett, Fatali, Lik and others) and I can say with certainty that Rodney's print quality is the best I have ever seen. A treat for the eyes (especially if you can see 20/20 or better! ).
Timing worked out great as I found Rodney hanging out in his gallery (he is most often not there because he has excellent management) and I got to talk with him for about 45 minutes. I came away with a lot of inspiration to keep moving forward, as well as having learned a few things. One thing we discussed was 8x10 quality vs digital in large sized fine art prints. This year I am branching out into a variety of areas including 8x10, 4x5, medium format digital stitching, so since he had already done comprehensive testing I was very curious what his take on it would be.
He took me over to a couple of P65 stitched shots (5 stitched 65 mega Pix shots with very little overlap or cropping) that were 6 foot wide panoramas. We both scrutinized the finest detail in the print and both concluded that it looked quite good. But then he took me to a 50" x 10' (ten FOOT) panorama print (printed at the maximum size of Fuji Flex) and we compared detail. Remember this was a 8x10 shot cropped to panorama. We both concluded that it was quite a bit better than the digital file! There was even greater fine detail in the 8x10. I'm sold.
Anyways, I found Rodney Lowe Jr to be very down to earth and approachable. I found his work quite inspirational (especially his mastery of print making).
Since I find inspiration/passion to be, in many ways, the wellspring of life, I thought I would put this out to the landscape and print group to possibly benefit from. I think some of you who come through Vegas could time your trip to view his gallery in "City Center" before going out into the great SW to photograph, to add fuel to your own fire.
Just went to a show of a Boston photographer, Neal Rantoul. He has been working on a series of the Palouse area of eastern Washington for several years. He started with 8x10 and is now using a D3x. He found traveling with the 8x10 to be difficult after 9/11, not to mention expensive. It was interesting that he said with the 8x10 in the Palouse where there is a lot of grassland and wind that work with the 8x10 was a little frustrating. His 44 x60 inch prints from the 8x10 were fine detail with some motion. The detail sucked you in as it should with an 8x10. But surprisingly the 24x36 shots from the D3x had much the same feel for detail. It was noticeable the motion was gone (shooting at f11 instead of f32 or 45) so in many ways there was more detail. I spent a long time going over the prints, the 8x10s were drum scanned and printed on a 44 inch Epson as were the D3x photos. It was very interesting to look at big prints side by side. Both were wonderful in their own right.
It would be interesting to get more of an insight into the mental approach of large format users.
Clearly there is none of the convenience and instant feedback available to digital photographers so there must be something completely different. It can't be a slavish desire for mega sized prints with massive detail...as few photographers print above A2 I suspect...and as for detail...a camera like the 5D2 with a quality lens could create a great panorama with a little help from PS and a few stitched images...so it must be something else.
I think it is the 'craft' of the processes.....a mindset that works on understanding the whole process....getting each stage right.....and being confident about one's vision as it is basically a one off opportunity.
The question is...do large format photographers have more in common with painters than with other photographers? They would seem to work within the same constraints...and are also dedicated to the single finished product...all the eggs in one basket so to speak!
I did watch a documentary some time back where the photographer was doing a fashion mag front cover with a large format view camera......fascinating stuff...amazing images.....all dozen or so that he produced during the session!
tomm101 wrote:
Just went to a show of a Boston photographer, Neal Rantoul. He has been working on a series of the Palouse area of eastern Washington for several years. He started with 8x10 and is now using a D3x. He found traveling with the 8x10 to be difficult after 9/11, not to mention expensive. It was interesting that he said with the 8x10 in the Palouse where there is a lot of grassland and wind that work with the 8x10 was a little frustrating. His 44 x60 inch prints from the 8x10 were fine detail with some motion. The detail sucked you in as it should with an 8x10. But surprisingly the 24x36 shots from the D3x had much the same feel for detail. It was noticeable the motion was gone (shooting at f11 instead of f32 or 45) so in many ways there was more detail. I spent a long time going over the prints, the 8x10s were drum scanned and printed on a 44 inch Epson as were the D3x photos. It was very interesting to look at big prints side by side. Both were wonderful in their own right.
When there is blur or movement it is true that you can push digital a long way further than some might believe. I am getting some HUGE prints from the 5D Mark II of scenes like where the ocean water is all long exposure, and very little in the print is fine detail, not moving. But when it comes to a print that is mainly fine detail with little to no blur (or movement) the 8x10 absolutely rocks compared to the DSLR or even the MF digital. I used to argue the other way, BTW.
I also agree that 8x10 is going to be a much harder tool to use, not for everyone (maybe hardly anyone) and major resolution over-kill maybe for most. But for a mural sized fine detail master prints, WOW!
Many benefits to both, and completely different beasts!
anthonygh wrote:
It can't be a slavish desire for mega sized prints with massive detail...as few photographers print above A2 I suspect...
Hobby photographers, true; professional fine artists, no.
Now that massive-scale prints are readily attainable with excellent quality, the market forces of the fine art world have pushed bigger and bigger. Even a few years ago 16x20 was considered huge due to the equipment and size of negative you needed to get an attractive one. Now I can go buy a 60" printer—often for less money than an entry-level MF or high-end 35mm camera—and crank out huge prints all day long. So that's what's become expected.
If you want gallery representation, you're making enormous prints. If you want to satisfy art buyers, you're making enormous prints. If you want to keep up with the Joneses, you're making enormous prints. (Hopefully) The trend won't last forever, but right now it's quite literally go big or go home. And you've got to have the source material to back up those monster prints.
colinm wrote:
Hobby photographers, true; professional fine artists, no.
Now that massive-scale prints are readily attainable with excellent quality, the market forces of the fine art world have pushed bigger and bigger. Even a few years ago 16x20 was considered huge due to the equipment and size of negative you needed to get an attractive one. Now I can go buy a 60" printer—often for less money than an entry-level MF or high-end 35mm camera—and crank out huge prints all day long. So that's what's become expected.
If you want gallery representation, you're making enormous prints. If you want to satisfy art buyers, you're making enormous prints. If you want to keep up with the Joneses, you're making enormous prints. (Hopefully) The trend won't last forever, but right now it's quite literally go big or go home. And you've got to have the source material to back up those monster prints....Show more →
Yes big is great for presentation. But still the smaller ones are the sellers.
He took me over to a couple of P65 stitched shots (5 stitched 65 mega Pix shots with very little overlap or cropping) that were 6 foot wide panoramas. We both scrutinized the finest detail in the print and both concluded that it looked quite good. But then he took me to a 50" x 10' (ten FOOT) panorama print (printed at the maximum size of Fuji Flex) and we compared detail. Remember this was a 8x10 shot cropped to panorama. We both concluded that it was quite a bit better than the digital file! There was even greater fine detail in the 8x10. I'm sold....Show more →
What if he were to stitch 10 P65 images. Or twenty?
RDKirk wrote:
What if he were to stitch 10 P65 images. Or twenty?
That is a good question.
My guess (since I have not stitched that many MF shots yet) is that likely at 20 we might get that same insane detail. But for something like $30,000+ and the pain of trying to keep the light from changing to shoot 10-20 shots, to maybe match 8x10, it might be easier just to take one simple shot?
i have a friend who has been a professional large format shooter for a long time, although he stuck with 4x5 since he has done difficult climbs and such with his gear and 4x5 is about as large as he can manage on his trips. he's abandoned his film shooting for a couple of reasons.
the most important is that has has been unable to find any pro lab in the country with sufficiently consistent Velvia processing in the last couple of years. shooting 5 versions of any scene, 3 at his chosen exposure and one each a stop over and under and they came out generally looking different above and beyond any exposure differences. 5 years ago, he had almost never seen this. nowadays, he mostly sees this. he won't do his own processing because that is even more inconsistent.
the second reason is that with his D3X and Hasselblad backs, he gets much higher dynamic range in a single capture than anything he has seen out of any slide film. shooting multiple shots for HDR is trivial on digital and that gets even more dynamic range for when he needs that. the shadow detail he gets he has never seen on Velvia for sure.
although he sells mostly into the editorial stock market, he does a lot of gallery sales too. his large images are only 36x48 or so but at that size, he says that his about to be purchased 39MP back should comfortably exceed what his 4x5 could do. even the D3X comes close when used with the best lenses. at least that is what he tells me, and he's been pro in the landscape market now for more than 20 years.
My guess (since I have not stitched that many MF shots yet) is that likely at 20 we might get that same insane detail. But for something like $30,000+ and the pain of trying to keep the light from changing to shoot 10-20 shots, to maybe match 8x10, it might be easier just to take one simple shot?
I think the total levels of effort and dedication will work out to be about the same.
There has been a big move from the Velvia contrast look to a wider dynamic range in recent years. In part this is because digital has an inherent dynamic range greater than most slide films and digital is the primary capture method shown today. Color negative is a much better fit for the look that has developed in grand landscapes in recent years, but its much harder for most people to scan for themselves, fewer labs offer large format C-41 processing and even fewer offer fine art quality scanning for color negative.
There is no denying that the processing lab landscape is changing. Digital processing has moved much of the work labs did out to the customers. Customers can now handle much of their own printing with good quality results due to accessible color management tools. Large format printers are reasonably accessible in price. In addition, the environment is changing as fewer people shoot film and even fewer make prints. Wedding photography and a majority of commercial photography is done digitally now responding to demands for faster turnaround and lower cost. The bread and butter of labs is disappearing and the labs are closing left and right. I've thought for a while this would strengthen the labs remaining, but now I'm not so sure that is the case. Especially as I've seen my friends who shoot digital and 4X5 report that they've all shot much less 4X5 color in the last year.
As far as the MFDB outdoing the 4X5 format, it can certainly open new opportunities for shooting, but for fine detail, large format and high quality scanning still provides the best detail.
Alot of this goes to a different point though. I shoot with a view camera because I like to shoot with the view camera. I like the possibilities for composition it provides and I genuinely like using a wooden camera. I like the slow method of composing and focusing the shot. I have no deadlines and no pressure. I miss great shots that I could easily capture with an SLR system and I've botched a fair number of shots for technical reasons, but it makes the keepers that much sweeter.
I think what is happening in the market today is that alot of shooters who have shot LF for many years did so because it was THE accepted medium. Today, a new generation of photographers have come to market on smaller formats and proven customers will buy the smaller format images. Those who never enjoyed hauling the LF gear but kept doing it because digital wasn't "there yet" seem to be ditching LF now that smaller format digital has become more accepted. Based on the conversations I've had with them, it seems they like the flexibility and possibilities for fast reaction afforded by SLR systems.
HerbChong wrote:
i have a friend who has been a professional large format shooter for a long time, although he stuck with 4x5 since he has done difficult climbs and such with his gear and 4x5 is about as large as he can manage on his trips. he's abandoned his film shooting for a couple of reasons.
the most important is that has has been unable to find any pro lab in the country with sufficiently consistent Velvia processing in the last couple of years. shooting 5 versions of any scene, 3 at his chosen exposure and one each a stop over and under and they came out generally looking different above and beyond any exposure differences. 5 years ago, he had almost never seen this. nowadays, he mostly sees this. he won't do his own processing because that is even more inconsistent.
the second reason is that with his D3X and Hasselblad backs, he gets much higher dynamic range in a single capture than anything he has seen out of any slide film. shooting multiple shots for HDR is trivial on digital and that gets even more dynamic range for when he needs that. the shadow detail he gets he has never seen on Velvia for sure.
although he sells mostly into the editorial stock market, he does a lot of gallery sales too. his large images are only 36x48 or so but at that size, he says that his about to be purchased 39MP back should comfortably exceed what his 4x5 could do. even the D3X comes close when used with the best lenses. at least that is what he tells me, and he's been pro in the landscape market now for more than 20 years.
Mark Metternich wrote:
Rodney ...shoots almost exclusively 8x10 ...
He shoots a fair amount of 4x5 film as well.
Checking his field notes, some of the shots are taken at F45-F90.
By recalling from memory a real resolution of a LF system with a good LF lens at F32 and 4x5 film is an equivalent of ~30 digital Mpixels . For an 8x10 - multiply the number by ~3.75 - 4.0.
The difference in detail representation between digital vs film you are talking about, could easily be due to film grain presence and scanning at higher spi for film capture vs upsampling for digital capture. Grain produces fake but pleasing details while scanning produces a digital artifact free upsampling.
I think LF film still wins for a lansdcape work.
Taking a LF image is a pleasure for its own.
SergeyT wrote:
He shoots a fair amount of 4x5 film as well.
Checking his field notes, some of the shots are taken at F45-F90.
Most in this gallery are 8x10.
By recalling from memory a real resolution of a LF system with a good LF lens at F32 and 4x5 film is an equivalent of ~30 digital Mpixels .
I would say maybe 100
For an 8x10 - multiply the number by ~3.75 - 4.0.
i'd say maybe 400
The difference in detail representation between digital vs film you are talking about, could easily be due to film grain presence and scanning at higher spi for film capture vs upsampling for digital capture. Grain produces fake but pleasing details while scanning produces a digital artifact free upsampling.
That could play into it a bit, but there is a whole lot more raw fine detail in that 8x10.
I think LF film still wins for a landscape work.
For extra detailed mural sized prints I think it is a world all its own, and will be for some time.
Taking a LF image is a pleasure for its own. ...Show more →
for me, the image is the thing and the process only what is necessary to produce the image. if the process determines whether i get a good image or a bad one, i look for another process. film left my tools as soon as 6MP cameras became common because i had no love for the amount of work it took to get consistent results with film. at around 10MP, any resolution advantage of 35mm film evaporated.
Herb...
mrladewig wrote:
I shoot with a view camera because I like to shoot with the view camera. I like the possibilities for composition it provides and I genuinely like using a wooden camera. I like the slow method of composing and focusing the shot. I have no deadlines and no pressure. I miss great shots that I could easily capture with an SLR system and I've botched a fair number of shots for technical reasons, but it makes the keepers that much sweeter.
For landscape photographers with a decent scanner and PS skills.....surely a MF Fuji Rangefinder and a fine grained film / tripod will give superb results? That was a rhetorical question......
I use my 4x5 more than my digital. I'd love an 8x10 but honestly my 4x5 pack already clocks in around 30 pounds, and I don't want it to be 40. 8x10 is great because you can contract print at a reasonable size, but looking at even a 4x5 slide is enough to fall in love. If I could estimate it (totally non-scientific), I'd put the resolution of a good 4x5 drum scan somewhere around 200 MP as a digital equivalent.
If you've never used a view camera, you're missing a huge part of what photography is all about - the adventure, the creativity, the missing a shot because the sun is now gone and it just took you 25 minutes to set up and focus your camera
pocketfulladou wrote:
If you've never used a view camera, you're missing a huge part of what photography is all about - the adventure, the creativity, the missing a shot because the sun is now gone and it just took you 25 minutes to set up and focus your camera
Don't forget the most magical sunrise in three years and you were there, with plenty of time to compose, focus and wait for just the perfect light. And then, 30 minutes later back at your car realizing you never removed the dark slide...
).
