p.4 #1 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
KLaban wrote:
As a photographer who supplied clients with prints and files up to 84" long side and was well aware of the hassle, complexities and costs involved, I now far prefer the intimacy of smaller prints.
Just sayin'.
Well, I think part of my current thinking is based that I now find myself in a large Vienna apartment with high ceilings and empty walls
p.4 #2 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
johnvanr wrote:
Well, I think part of my current thinking is based that I now find myself in a large Vienna apartment with high ceilings and empty walls
p.4 #3 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
Found an interesting read on human eye resolving capability. I'm sure there are others (i.e. old news), but I liked how this one approached it a bit differently than many do.
p.4 #4 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
Just want to add a side comment to those who are thinking about prints and how many dpi you really need when you are making your size calculations.
If you are inkjet printing, on the vast majority of papers ink spreading is THE limiting factor. I usually print at 360 dpi but the simple fact is that detail that is easily seen when looking at 100 or 200% on screen is frequently *not* visible on print, even when looking a the print using a loupe. On papers I quite like such as epson hot press bright, cold press bright, velvet fine art, or exhibition fiber (the latter especially for black and white), I actually don't think you get much more than 240 dpi of true information due to ink spreading. I've seen claims made that some other papers can give less ink spreading, but I haven't really looked into them because I choose a paper for the overall look and not the ultimate resolution in the print.
Resolution and contrast are lost at every step in imaging from the lens modulation transfer function to the sensor array sampling (Bayer or Foveon) and finally at the print. So, you actually have more leeway than you think: if the final end product is a print, then you don't need to calculate assuming you need 360 or even 300 dpi at the final print. Especially if you are not looking at the print using a loupe (which I do only when I've first made the print - after that I look at it like any normal person would!).
p.4 #5 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
photonoclast wrote:
Just want to add a side comment to those who are thinking about prints and how many dpi you really need when you are making your size calculations.
If you are inkjet printing, on the vast majority of papers ink spreading is THE limiting factor. I usually print at 360 dpi but the simple fact is that detail that is easily seen when looking at 100 or 200% on screen is frequently *not* visible on print, even when looking a the print using a loupe. On papers I quite like such as epson hot press bright, cold press bright, velvet fine art, or exhibition fiber (the latter especially for black and white), I actually don't think you get much more than 240 dpi of true information due to ink spreading. I've seen claims made that some other papers can give less ink spreading, but I haven't really looked into them because I choose a paper for the overall look and not the ultimate resolution in the print.
Resolution and contrast are lost at every step in imaging from the lens modulation transfer function to the sensor array sampling (Bayer or Foveon) and finally at the print. So, you actually have more leeway than you think: if the final end product is a print, then you don't need to calculate assuming you need 360 or even 300 dpi at the final print. Especially if you are not looking at the print using a loupe (which I do only when I've first made the print - after that I look at it like any normal person would!)....Show more →
Which is why I target between 225 - 300, depending on whether I'm printing via acrylic, gloss, metal, matte, canvas, etc.
Image structure and viewing distance factor in also, etc. to how large I feel comfortable from a given pixel count.
p.4 #6 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
photonoclast wrote:
Just want to add a side comment to those who are thinking about prints and how many dpi you really need when you are making your size calculations.
If you are inkjet printing, on the vast majority of papers ink spreading is THE limiting factor. I usually print at 360 dpi but the simple fact is that detail that is easily seen when looking at 100 or 200% on screen is frequently *not* visible on print, even when looking a the print using a loupe. On papers I quite like such as epson hot press bright, cold press bright, velvet fine art, or exhibition fiber (the latter especially for black and white), I actually don't think you get much more than 240 dpi of true information due to ink spreading. I've seen claims made that some other papers can give less ink spreading, but I haven't really looked into them because I choose a paper for the overall look and not the ultimate resolution in the print.
Resolution and contrast are lost at every step in imaging from the lens modulation transfer function to the sensor array sampling (Bayer or Foveon) and finally at the print. So, you actually have more leeway than you think: if the final end product is a print, then you don't need to calculate assuming you need 360 or even 300 dpi at the final print. Especially if you are not looking at the print using a loupe (which I do only when I've first made the print - after that I look at it like any normal person would!)....Show more →
It really depends on the paper one is printing on and the fine detail in the original image and the sharpening one applies to the image prior to printing. I’ve gone through the exercise on numerous images using various sharpening techniques and I did see a difference in the final prints with images that have more pixels than ones that have less. I’ve also seen a difference printing at the higher 600dpi resolution than the normal 300dpi resolution. This of course is paper dependant and papers like matte or canvas will not show these differences.
I find it ironic that we’ll pixel peep our lenses right into the deep corners, yet when we print, we don’t have that same obsession with ultimate quality.
p.4 #7 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
A group of us did all the tests several years back. We collectively found that 360 ppi for Epson and 300 for Canon worked best with the sharpest papers at the time. You could cut that by at least ⅓ for canvas -- doubling the print resolution made zero difference in the final image detail, even with noses in the side-by-side prints. If you use a service printer, I reco whatever they recommend for their printers. If you print very large where viewing distances are more than say 3-4 feet, then you can also drop the required resolution by ⅓.
p.4 #8 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
chez wrote:
It really depends on the paper one is printing on and the fine detail in the original image and the sharpening one applies to the image prior to printing. I’ve gone through the exercise on numerous images using various sharpening techniques and I did see a difference in the final prints with images that have more pixels than ones that have less. I’ve also seen a difference printing at the higher 600dpi resolution than the normal 300dpi resolution. This of course is paper dependant and papers like matte or canvas will not show these differences.
I find it ironic that we’ll pixel peep our lenses right into the deep corners, yet when we print, we don’t have that same obsession with ultimate quality....Show more →
Perhaps we're getting a little off topic here, but I would be quite interested if you could share what paper you have found that might have higher resolution but still show the kind of rich look one can get from, say, epson exhibition fiber.
p.4 #9 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
photonoclast wrote:
Perhaps we're getting a little off topic here, but I would be quite interested if you could share what paper you have found that might have higher resolution but still show the kind of rich look one can get from, say, epson exhibition fiber.
I know you didn't ask me, but Epson Exhibition Fiber remains my goto -- it's simply glorious with B&W or color. The only papers I ever found noticeably sharper--and even then there weren't significantly so--were all high gloss, which I personally don't care for. YMMV.
p.4 #10 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
Just to stay off-topic: I went to an exhibit here in Vienna of work by Gregory Crewdson. It wasn't really my thing, but the prints were enormous (easily five-six feet at the long end for many) and even when standing at nose length, they were tack sharp. At the entrance, it said the prints were digital. I looked him up and it seems he used 8x10, which I assumed was then scanned at the highest possible resolution. In any case, the detail was amazing.
That said, years ago I saw an exhibit by Jay Maisel, whose work I do like, and it was clearly blown up beyond the proportions of early digital, but the images were still as strong as ever.
p.4 #11 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
Steve Spencer wrote:
I would recommend considering at least some Mamiya 645 manual focus lenses. Some are pretty small and excellent and they are pretty inexpensive. For example the 55 f/2.8 is excellent and I am a fan of the 120 f/4 Macro which is great as well. There are definitely some 35mm format lenses that will cover the 46.6mm needed for the square crop but not all of them and as Makten pointed out unfortunately not many of the Leica M lenses work optimally even with a square crop.
I am not sure how wide you want to go as wide lenses will be the hardest, and I am not sure how small you want the lenses to be either, but here are some I would consider if I were in your shoes.
24-25mm -- this is about like a 17 or 18mm in FF terms
Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS
Zeiss ZE 25 f/2
28mm -- this is about like a 20mm in FF terms
Leica R 28 f/2.8 newest version with the 55mm filter
Zeiss ZE or ZF 28 f/2
Canon EF 28 f/2 IS
Nikon F 28 f/2.8 CRC (the one with .2mm close focus)
35mm -- this is about 25mm in FF terms
Canon EF 35 f/1.4 II
Zeiss ZE or ZF 35 f/2
Contax C/Y 35 f/1.4
Leica R 35 f/2.8 (latest version)
50mm - this is about 35mm in FF terms (many choices)
Zeiss ZE or ZF 50 f/2 Macro
Sigma DG 50 f/1.4 (kind of big though)
Leica R 50 f/2
70mm - this is about 50mm in FF terms
Sigma DG 70 f/2.8 macro
80 to 85mm - this is about 58 to 62mm in FF terms
Leica R 80 f/1.4 (this definitely works and was one of my favorite lens on Fuji)
Contax C/Y 85 f/2.8
100 to 105mm - this is about 75mm in FF terms
Zeiss ZE or ZF 100 f/2 macro
Contax C/Y 100 f/2
Olympus OM 100 f/2
Contax C/Y 100 f/3.5
Nikon F 105 f/2.5
135mm - this is about 100mm in FF terms
Zeiss ZE or ZF 135 f/2 APO - (this lens works wonderfully on the GFX and more than covers a square image circle, also one of my favorites)
Canon EF 135 f/2
180 to 200mm -- this is about 130 t0 145mm in FF terms
Voigtlander 180 f/4 APO
Canon EF 200 f/2.8L
Nikon F 180 f/2.8 ED
If you want longer than that, I think almost every FF lens will cover the 46.6mm you need for square format.
I've been reading through your long thread about adapting lenses to the Fuji, but haven't read it all. I'm particularly interested in Pentax and Mamiya 645 wide lenses that work well on the Fuji GFX.
Also, I have a bunch of Olympus OM lenses, but I forgot to take my adapter Vienna (I was actually planning to sell my GFX50R). Any experience with those?
p.4 #12 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
photonoclast wrote:
Perhaps we're getting a little off topic here, but I would be quite interested if you could share what paper you have found that might have higher resolution but still show the kind of rich look one can get from, say, epson exhibition fiber.
Most of my prints are not glossy, but my go to paper for the glossy ( semi-gloss ) texture is the Moab Juniper Baryta Rag. I also love the EEF paper.
One thing to note as far a dpi goes, the printers all require a set value ( 300 / 600 for HP and 360 / 720 for Epson ) and if you send them something other than these values, the driver will upsample your image to meet the requirements of the printer. The thing I found was it's better to upscale your image before printing and perform sharpening on the upscaled image, then print...than to sharpen on the lower resolution image and have the driver upscale the sharpened image. It's also been noted that for some fine detailed images, people can see the difference if printed at the higher dpi than the lower...but I did not focus on that.
Printing of textured papers / canvas, I highly doubt you would see any differences.
Aug 13, 2024 at 01:02 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.4 #13 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
If I'm just doing an ~8x10 or so, nothing too serious, I'll often just grab an 800x1200 I already did, about 120 dpi or ppi I guess. Looks great, might be able to get a better image sometimes using more pixels mostly good luck telling the difference. If you think I'm an idiot or something Duggal Labs used to say 150-300dpi.
p.4 #14 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
johnvanr wrote:
I've been reading through your long thread about adapting lenses to the Fuji, but haven't read it all. I'm particularly interested in Pentax and Mamiya 645 wide lenses that work well on the Fuji GFX.
Also, I have a bunch of Olympus OM lenses, but I forgot to take my adapter Vienna (I was actually planning to sell my GFX50R). Any experience with those?
I’m not sure how wide you want to go, but the Pentax 645 35/3.5 A is a good and compact performer.
p.4 #15 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
johnvanr wrote:
Just to stay off-topic: I went to an exhibit here in Vienna of work by Gregory Crewdson. It wasn't really my thing, but the prints were enormous (easily five-six feet at the long end for many) and even when standing at nose length, they were tack sharp. At the entrance, it said the prints were digital. I looked him up and it seems he used 8x10, which I assumed was then scanned at the highest possible resolution. In any case, the detail was amazing.
Gregory Crewdson has been said to have used an 8x10 Sinar P2 with 300mm and 210mm lenses, likely Schneider from the bts images. Now he apparently shoots Phase One. The details in his images are astounding. Many of his photos are meticulously curated, staged with external lighting, sets and props. It's quite amazing work.
If you're after that large format look Sinar and Arca Swiss 8x10 are still quite serviceable and the lenses can be had for very sensible prices. For digital, check out LargeSense.
You might find the costs a bit higher than the trade-in on your Mamiya 6. On the other hand, a good scanner for your film from the Mamiya might give you what you're after.
p.4 #16 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
I used to shoot 8x10. In the field. The detail is astounding. The experience is like none other; you basically are looking at an upside down and reversed 8x10 transparency on a light table as you compose on your groundglass. You make camera adjustments on the GG and WYSIWYG there is the final — assuming you know how to use your spot meter properly, which isn’t trivial... None of it was trivial. 10 images in a day was a lot. My pack was huge and with 3 lenses and 5 film holders and an 8 pound “lightweight” field camera, meter, loupes, filters and darkcloth weighed a good 40 pounds, and that was IF I was carrying my tripod in my hands…. Next we can talk about keeping the film and holders and inside of camera all dust free. Again in the field…
MF digital is AWESOME!
PS: for some spectacular 8x10 images, google Burtinsky China.
p.4 #17 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
gear-nut wrote:
I used to shoot 8x10. In the field. The detail is astounding. The experience is like none other; you basically are looking at an upside down and reversed 8x10 transparency on a light table as you compose on your groundglass. You make camera adjustments on the GG and WYSIWYG there is the final — assuming you know how to use your spot meter properly, which isn’t trivial... None of it was trivial. 10 images in a day was a lot. My pack was huge and with 3 lenses and 5 film holders and an 8 pound “lightweight” field camera, meter, loupes, filters and darkcloth weighed a good 40 pounds, and that was IF I was carrying my tripod in my hands…. Next we can talk about keeping the film and holders and inside of camera all dust free. Again in the field…
MF digital is AWESOME!
PS: for some spectacular 8x10 images, google Burtinsky China. ...Show more →
p.4 #18 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
bobby350z wrote:
How does your GFX compare to your scanned 8x10s?
Good question, not so easy to answer, but let me try. First off, realize this was early digital days. Nikon’s flagship D1 was 2.6mp, Canon followed with the 1d at 8. Drum scan resolution could go up to 6k dpi but took forever and was extremely expensive. A 1200 dpi on 8x10 was essentially a 100mp image (which was close to the optical limits of the system anyway, but more on that in a sec.) In 16 bit, that was essentially a 200mb file, so back then you dropped off a pre-formatted hard drive with the negatives. You needed a top end workstation of the day and it still took minutes to open in PS. Then watch each adjustment you made take a minute or five to render. So first thing you learned was do a “quick” 300dpi 8-bit scan as your initial working file; and then if you liked it enough get the bigger one done and rework it.
Chrome film of the day had limited exposure latitude. One of the best was Provia, and if you exposed it perfectly you got about 7 stops. So SND filter use was common, and maybe netted you 2 extra stops of lattitude. Reversal gave you another stop, stop and a half, but wasn’t as sharp and took an extra lossy iteration (reversal) to get to working color, which was usually never as good as the direct chrome and arduous to correct. So it wasn’t popular unless you did direct optical prints.
8x10 lenses were good, but not Leica good. 50 lpmm was very good resolution. So even on 8x10 film, your best chromes delivered about 120mp of usable resolution. (I suspect you’re starting to see where I’m going with this ) But. 120mp compared to 8 was freaking incredible. At that time. So yes, it was impressive.
But the reality is today with 100mp MF, I get a comparable size image, with far more DR and far broader color range that I can actually adjust pretty easily, and all with the same net “usable resolution.” And I can get 7 or 8 of them in a second. We’ve come a long way
PS: I forgot to mention costs. Don’t hold me exactly, but IIRC depending on how you bought it, 8x10 chrome film was about $8 per sheet, and processing was another $12. A 16-bit 2500 dpi drum scan was over $100, the 360/8-bit was around $40. Epson eventually came out with a “cheap” flatbed with transparency lid that would do 720 dpi, but lower DR due to weaker lights. Anyway, it was around $900 and so we all bought them for our initial “small” working file.
p.4 #19 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
AndereObjektiv wrote:
Gregory Crewdson has been said to have used an 8x10 Sinar P2 with 300mm and 210mm lenses, likely Schneider from the bts images. Now he apparently shoots Phase One. The details in his images are astounding. Many of his photos are meticulously curated, staged with external lighting, sets and props. It's quite amazing work.
If you're after that large format look Sinar and Arca Swiss 8x10 are still quite serviceable and the lenses can be had for very sensible prices. For digital, check out LargeSense.
You might find the costs a bit higher than the trade-in on your Mamiya 6. On the other hand, a good scanner for your film from the Mamiya might give you what you're after. ...Show more →
I’m not after his output. I was just astounded at the detail of it. And he does indeed produce his images as if they’re movie scenes.
p.4 #20 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
gear-nut wrote:
Good question, not so easy to answer, but let me try. First off, realize this was early digital days. Nikon’s flagship D1 was 2.6mp, Canon followed with the 1d at 8. Drum scan resolution could go up to 6k dpi but took forever and was extremely expensive. A 1200 dpi on 8x10 was essentially a 100mp image (which was close to the optical limits of the system anyway, but more on that in a sec.) In 16 bit, that was essentially a 200mb file, so back then you dropped off a pre-formatted hard drive with the negatives. You needed a top end workstation of the day and it still took minutes to open in PS. Then watch each adjustment you made take a minute or five to render. So first thing you learned was do a “quick” 300dpi 8-bit scan as your initial working file; and then if you liked it enough get the bigger one done and rework it.
Chrome film of the day had limited exposure latitude. One of the best was Provia, and if you exposed it perfectly you got about 7 stops. So SND filter use was common, and maybe netted you 2 extra stops of lattitude. Reversal gave you another stop, stop and a half, but wasn’t as sharp and took an extra lossy iteration (reversal) to get to working color, which was usually never as good as the direct chrome and arduous to correct. So it wasn’t popular unless you did direct optical prints.
8x10 lenses were good, but not Leica good. 50 lpmm was very good resolution. So even on 8x10 film, your best chromes delivered about 120mp of usable resolution. (I suspect you’re starting to see where I’m going with this ) But. 120mp compared to 8 was freaking incredible. At that time. So yes, it was impressive.
But the reality is today with 100mp MF, I get a comparable size image, with far more DR and far broader color range that I can actually adjust pretty easily, and all with the same net “usable resolution.” And I can get 7 or 8 of them in a second. We’ve come a long way
PS: I forgot to mention costs. Don’t hold me exactly, but IIRC depending on how you bought it, 8x10 chrome film was about $8 per sheet, and processing was another $12. A 16-bit 2500 dpi drum scan was over $100, the 360/8-bit was around $40. Epson eventually came out with a “cheap” flatbed with transparency lid that would do 720 dpi, but lower DR due to weaker lights. Anyway, it was around $900 and so we all bought them for our initial “small” working file. ...Show more →
Much appreciated. Last yr I was thinking of getting a film 4x5 but then didn't do it due to film development time and money.
) But. 120mp compared to 8 was freaking incredible. At that time. So yes, it was impressive.