my friends and my clients don't care how i got an image or how much work it took, they only care that i got it. anything that lets me get the image i want in the situations that i want is a tool that i want. anything that gets in the way or decreases the chances of me getting the image i want at the quality i want gets discarded. the available single capture 150MP solutions are not there yet. since my friend's experience with QC going downhill to the point of random crapshoot at pro film labs processing large format Velvia, any desire to experiment has gone even if it does offer more resolution than a medium format back.
pocketfulladou wrote:
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 ...Show more →
Yes, I think your right about the mega pixel equivalent. I was being conservative. 8x10 might be around 600-800 even.
I've done the calculations, and for most 4x5 setups (with the lenses that I either own or wish I owned) it works out to a ~60MP equivalency with one major, massive qualifier:
That 60MP? It better be very nearly perfect. It would have to have the same optical efficiency of a Canon 135/F2@F4 on a 21MP FF digital. Quite simply, this does not exist for medium format digital.
This is, of course, ignoring movements. That said, if I could shoot digital with a 4x5 80-120MP back (ISO [50?]100-200) that played nice with movements, I would in an instant.
I have run the gamut too. I shot 4x5 for years with a gallery right across the street from Fatali in Springdale, UT.
I shot 8x10 for a while and settled on 5x7. Still to this day there is no comparing outstanding LF to digital captures from single shot backs. I met Rodney in 2001 when we were both at an art show as exhibitors. He pointed me in the direction of the Optronics Colorgetter Eagle drum scanner that he uses( one of the best investments I ever made). His work was outstanding then and even better now. It is a very hard line of work in todays digital camera era where people discount the value of photography as easy computer generated creations and I wish him the best of luck.
Neuffy wrote:
I've done the calculations, and for most 4x5 setups (with the lenses that I either own or wish I owned) it works out to a ~60MP equivalency with one major, massive qualifier:
That 60MP? It better be very nearly perfect. It would have to have the same optical efficiency of a Canon 135/F2@F4 on a 21MP FF digital. Quite simply, this does not exist for medium format digital.
This is, of course, ignoring movements. That said, if I could shoot digital with a 4x5 80-120MP back (ISO [50?]100-200) that played nice with movements, I would in an instant.
Maybe it is the lens issues (I'm not sure the "why") but it seems most who do real world print testing (that I have read) find the 4x5 to be substantially better than 60 good MP. I'm smack in the middle of testing, so I can't yet say with authority.
plateaulight wrote:
I have run the gamut too. I shot 4x5 for years with a gallery right across the street from Fatali in Springdale, UT.
I shot 8x10 for a while and settled on 5x7. Still to this day there is no comparing outstanding LF to digital captures from single shot backs. I met Rodney in 2001 when we were both at an art show as exhibitors. He pointed me in the direction of the Optronics Colorgetter Eagle drum scanner that he uses( one of the best investments I ever made). His work was outstanding then and even better now. It is a very hard line of work in todays digital camera era where people discount the value of photography as easy computer generated creations and I wish him the best of luck....Show more →
Thanks for the feedback here. I love your line "It is a very hard line of work in todays digital camera era where people discount the value of photography as easy computer generated creations and I wish him the best of luck."
That is so true! It is tough (but not impossible) and there is a TON of ignorance out there about the issue.
Mark Metternich wrote:
Maybe it is the lens issues (I'm not sure the "why") but it seems most who do real world print testing (that I have read) find the 4x5 to be substantially better than 60 good MP. I'm smack in the middle of testing, so I can't yet say with authority.
I agree. 50-60mp is close as far as resolution but the color quality of slide film is IMHO superior.
The bid advantage of 8x10 is tone. There is a sensation of creaminess in 8x10 film's tone that 4x5 seems to block up and harden. I think it might be from the film base thickness though. I shoot 5x7 and cut 8x10 film for my use. I get most of the tone and the extra sharpness of 4x5 coverage lens's also.
In todays world most people just see price tags and not so much as quality though and digital wins at the price game. Although the best landscape artists use film still and manage to do well.
Mark Metternich wrote:
Maybe it is the lens issues (I'm not sure the "why") but it seems most who do real world print testing (that I have read) find the 4x5 to be substantially better than 60 good MP. I'm smack in the middle of testing, so I can't yet say with authority.
plateaulight wrote:
I agree. 50-60mp is close as far as resolution but the color quality of slide film is IMHO superior.
I think one bad assumption made in the digital world is that there is 100% effectiveness in the pixels captured. Is a 60MP MFDB back really producing an effective 60MP resolution file on any capture? There is always some loss and sometimes significant loss. In digitized film, oversampling is often very handy and I think its one of the things that gives 4X5 and larger formats such a smooth tonality even in the cases where the detail isn't there. When the detail is there, it ensures that every bit of the detail is really usable. I'm not so sure that a 4X5 image is really limited at 60MP though. I think this calculation (driven by lp/mm) is somewhat flawed because it assumes 100% efficiency in any digital capture, I think they assume particular output sizes and because there is huge variations in LF lens performance.
Another component I think really benefits large format is that less enlargement is required for a given print size. People are so engrossed with pixels these days, but they tend to forget about enlargement and its impact on the image. I can tell a difference in the prints from my LX3 versus my Rebel XT even though the LX3 has more pixels. The LX3 makes a great 6X9 print, but I think a 10X15 looks pretty rough from this camera. The Rebel XT makes a great 10X15 print and even 12X18 looks pretty good. I think full frame 35mm shots look a bit better at these sizes (including hi-rez full frame 35mm film scans).
Really hard to identify with the Zen part of losing a day's shooting because the dark slide's in the box. I think the dynamic range points made previously are important! I always resented the contrast restrictions of reversal film when I shot 135. Sunlit days were always a big problem and front lite can be boring. I treasure a slides taken in overcast.
Also the comment that patrons look at the huge display prints then buy the medium prints. I do my own work (available light dancers) and print only as large as 24x36 (single 12-21Mp capture people don't really need/want the detail landscapes do).
I have average size rooms and walls so I have resisted buying a 44-60" carriage printer where I can display only 2 prints where I could have 6 or so. But then I don't have a big gallery which must be enormous overhead (to be subsidized as a sales tool for prints?).
You have to wonder how long film will be available; what variety will be there and how processing will evolve. I'd also be concerned that the sizes of packaged chemicals will be ever more limited and expensive.
I have to think that anyone shooting film would be wise to keep his/her digital shooting skills alive and well.
papageno wrote:
You have to wonder how long film will be available; what variety will be there and how processing will evolve. I'd also be concerned that the sizes of packaged chemicals will be ever more limited and expensive.
I have to think that anyone shooting film would be wise to keep his/her digital shooting skills alive and well.
Seems true.
SoundHound wrote:
I think the dynamic range points made previously are important!
Shooting bracketed (when possible) can eliminate these problems.
Putting to one side the inevitable film/digital stuff, I'm surprised people didn't jump more on the differences we make in our shooting as we switch platforms.
During my career I shot primarily 35mm and 2 1/4. When I shot with the 'Blad, I tended to see mostly in squares and I shot a lot more with the tripod. The pictures were simply different: cousins perhaps, but definitely not twins. I know with 2 1/4 I shot slower and somewhat more symetrically.....
I also shot with both Nikons and Leicas and again, with somewhat different vision. Of course I switched cameras because the subject (or the client) seemed to demand a particular technical choice.
