IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

[Ben Rubinstein]

Jack, I seem to recall that you're a bit of an expert in this stuff, how come the Epson V750 scan of the 8X10 is so close to the drum scan but with the 4X5 scans the difference between the Epson and drum scans are so dramatic? Is it a flatness in the holder thing?

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Well I did say I don't want a physically larger sensor or *need* more pixels, but I said nothing about adopting new technologies, better noise characteristics, etc... So I fear our chants and pilgrimage would not work to appease Dante.

True - you have already been assimilated.

Dante (aka Bill)

 

[Shelby Lewis]

I think that a 60MP 6x7 sensor on an RZ would have been a far more interesting step up than going from 60MP to 80MP on a sub 645 sensor.

Hell even a 40MP on an RZ 6x7.

This look is something I've yet to see from any digital capture... I'm shooting 28mp on an RZ and can say that (as fred and I bantered about in another thread) the 645 look is pretty much there in the current sensors... but the 6x7 and larger rendering is IMO absent. From that side of things... i think the entire film/digital debate has hit a wall.

Artistically, it's getting hard to explore these "looks" on the current equipment, especially for those of us who have always been digital shooters.

 

[timparkin]

Agreed. In the field, 4x5 is subject to vibrations by just a light breeze, and 8x10 even more so. The reality is that getting an "optimal" 4x5 or 8x10 capture *in the field* is EXTREMELY difficult. This is where digital MF sits heads and shoulders above traditional LF film capture. For me, I find I get superior net results in the field from direct MF digital -- and have been ever since single-capture MF digital hit 39MP -- than I ever did from LF and film. I am not saying I never got excellent LF captures, I did, just they were more the exception than the norm, and direct digital renders a much higher percentage of technologically superior files.

Agreed, although if you do have a good technique you can get consistent LF images. Most of my shots taken at f/22 1/3 or less are predominantly 4000dpi sharp. Things like spikes on a chunky tripod, protecting from wind, not moving next to the camera, not passing movement up the cable release etc make a difference at that level of resolution. I imaging getting consistent results with digital will be easier definitely

I respect others opinions and experiences may vary. (Or if you only work inside a controlled studio environment, and have unlimited time to set each frame up, then I'd agree LF film has the edge.) Regardless one thing is for certain, and that is from capture to final print, the direct digital workflow is far more efficient than the traditional wet film to wet print workflow -- I don't think anybody can argue that point

Nope!

Re print resolution: I am going to respectfully disagree with Stefan, and say that on a very large print, like 40x50, I think one can do with 180/200 PPI output, but for most images under that 240 PPI is going to be superior, and 300/360 PPI remains the ideal for "put your nose int eh print" detail. Canvas is a different story -- there you can drop to even 90 PPI and it can look pretty decent.

I agree as I tried printing these at 180dpi and they did look soft in comparison. 240 wasn't too bad though but the 360's stood up to bright light examination (the ultimate test - you can see a lot more resolution in very bright light).

Tim

 

[timparkin]

Jack, I seem to recall that you're a bit of an expert in this stuff, how come the Epson V750 scan of the 8X10 is so close to the drum scan but with the 4X5 scans the difference between the Epson and drum scans are so dramatic? Is it a flatness in the holder thing?

I'll let Jack follow this up but in my experience the Epson has a limit of approx 2400dpi and this is only about two thirds of the capability of 4x5 film. However, this will get nearly everything out of 8x10 film. Hence the degradation of the 4x5 image is a lot more than the degradation of the 8x10 image.

Tim

 

[timparkin]

Tim, how's your budget to start doing lens comparisons on film and digital

I'd be happy to but I've only got one life and I want to spend more time creating photographs

 

[Bob]

It is all about the complete imaging chain.
I used to use a large format enlarger and a vacuum frame for contacts.
In commercial graphics although we used an 8x10 view camera we often used larger internegatives and masks. What we found was interesting in tests of various parts of the process. One example was that when we used typical printing paper and projection enlargement techniques, internal reflections within the photographic paper would cause edge blurring simply due to the thickness of the emulsion and the back-scatter from the coated paper substrate. This was roughly equivalent from a rule of thumb point of view that roughly half of the resolution was lost in the final print. Back then circa 1968, emulsions such as plus-x were considered to have a resolution limit of roughly 80 line pairs per mm and the best lenses then could just deliver that. Once an 8x10 was printed in a vacuum frame in contact with photo paper, that resolution was reduced to somewhere in the 20-40 line pairs per mm (about 500 line pairs per inch) in the finished print. Those silver contact prints were very beautiful to behold, with detail visible even with a loupe and smooth rich graduations. Once you look at one of these as a photographer does from roughly nose distance, you realize that digital printing as we do today is done so that it barely gets by at 360 dpi on a glossy paper. Today when I print at anything less, it looks just weak.
-bob

 

[Oren Grad]

Those silver contact prints were very beautiful to behold, with detail visible even with a loupe and smooth rich graduations. Once you look at one of these as a photographer does from roughly nose distance, you realize that digital printing as we do today is done so that it barely gets by at 360 dpi on a glossy paper. Today when I print at anything less, it looks just weak.

To follow up on Bob's point - I've spent a fair amount of time, ink and paper trying to see how closely I can mimic the subtlety of a contact print through an inkjet printer. I routinely print large files small, at 720 ppi, and have dabbled with 1440 as well; based on my results so far I think that 720 approaches but doesn't quite reach the point at which there's no further visible difference.

150 ppi looks like mush to me, at the close distances from which I normally view prints. Doesn't mean it's wrong; it just depends what you're trying to accomplish. One size doesn't fit all.

Anyway, very nice piece of work by Tim and friends - thanks very much for all your efforts!

 

[Lars]

Here's some results from 8x10 that illustrates some of the challenges involved.

Warning, 34 MB jpeg file. This is a quick and dirty drum scan at 2000 dpi (cropped to panoramic 6K x 20K pixels) of an 8x10 E100G shot in Death Valley in 2006. I used the Cooke XVa in the front+rear configuration, so 311 mm focal length. I stopped it down way too much to get maximum resolution, f/45 I think, so it's a bit soft.

http://www.chrome.se/files/2006-L008.jpg

The scan was one of the first I made with my drum scanner, lots of dust and bubbles. Pixel by pixel this scan (and the original) doesnt stand a chance in a comparison with a good MFDB exposure. It's simply a technically mediocre image.

However, from an artistic standpoint this image is in my view outstanding. I made two exposures that morning. The other one is tack sharp so I won't post it here in high res. So I have mixed feelings about this particular one.

I do think it's important to raise the issue of equipment cost in this debate. My 8x10 setup in the field (Toyo 810M, Gitzo CF 5-series, 150XL, Cooke XVa, Fujinon-W 210) cost me about $8K. This brings me the equivalent of 100-300 Mpx depending on a bunch of factors. If I wanted to shoot high resolution MFDB the investment would arguably be 10x more. From that perspective comparing 8x10 to MFDB doesnt even make sense. I do however applaud Tim Parkin's quality effort with the test, as does show just how much detail is possible with large format film.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Lars, are you including the film, processing and drum scanning in that price and the value of your time (which far too many people discount!)? The costing of shooting 8X10 in the field unless you are very economical with your film usage, can soon become rather expensive can it not?

 

[Oren Grad]

The costing of shooting 8X10 in the field unless you are very economical with your film usage, can soon become rather expensive can it not?

The logistics will kill you before the cost does. 8x10 holders are big and heavy. Reloading big sheets of film in the field, if you want to try to economize that way, is a bear. Big view cameras work for me (sometimes) because I'm happy making just a few exposures during an outing, then going home, running a drumload or two in my Jobo and contact printing. If I needed to do high volume capture, processing and enlarging, or to work away from home for any length of time, it would get impractical very, very fast.

 

[Jack]

Jack, I seem to recall that you're a bit of an expert in this stuff, how come the Epson V750 scan of the 8X10 is so close to the drum scan but with the 4X5 scans the difference between the Epson and drum scans are so dramatic? Is it a flatness in the holder thing?

I'll let Jack follow this up but in my experience the Epson has a limit of approx 2400dpi and this is only about two thirds of the capability of 4x5 film. However, this will get nearly everything out of 8x10 film. Hence the degradation of the 4x5 image is a lot more than the degradation of the 8x10 image.

Tim

Ben, pretty much what Tim said. The reality is there is so much info in an 8x10 that if you toss half of it during the scan process, you still have twice as much data as the 4x5 and you'll never even notice the "loss" in a 30x40 print... BUT, and that is a capitalized BIG but --- you need to have an ideally captured 8x10 to begin with, and these are extremely difficult to manage in a field environ.

 

[Jack]

The costing of shooting 8X10 in the field unless you are very economical with your film usage, can soon become rather expensive can it not?

The logistics will kill you before the cost does.

I would agree with Oren that the logistics are so cumbersome they prevent the expenses from getting out of hand. But you are correct Ben, if you shot and processed as much 8x10 as you do direct digital, you'd need VC backing for your art business. When I left 8x10, I think my combined film and processing costs were running close to $9.00 per sheet, not to mention the 3 or 4-day turn-around times! I think my biggest day in the field ever with 8x10 was 12 sheets -- and that was a BIG day of shooting 8x10, so it self-modulated the costs. Seriously, by the time you set up two shots your light for that morning or evening has usually come and gone; if you're lucky in a single given area, you can maybe get four distinct set-ups in before the light disappears...

Re loading in the field: I used to carry a soft-sided cooler filled with 2-dozen pre-loaded 8x10 holders -- holders are two-sided, so you get 2 exposures per holder. I owned about 3 dozen holders at the time, carried 6 in my bag -- you won't want to carry more than 6, they are heavy! I also carried 6 empty in the car for "special" film, usually faster negative emulsions in case I needed the speed for something. I then carried boxes of my normal films and a dark tent to do the field changes -- and field changes are not fun, one word: DUST.

 

[Stefan Steib]

I still think I am so glad I don´t do 8x10 anymore. There was no romantics in this, just a lot of work and inconveniance and WEIGHT !

Besides this there are some more things some people do not seem to remember: Film wobble (partial movement during exposure). It was a problem for long time exposures and also partly unsharp areas even at short exposure times . It happened with heat and while shooting downwards and the only thing to do against it was to use double sided tape and stick the film into the film holder (which was a pest afterwards in the darkroom removing from the film again). Sinar tried to solve this with the 4x5 " holders with these clamps to straighten the film (they were really expensive) but there never were any 8/10 made like this.

Am I the only one who has gone through this ? Can anybody forget this nonsense ? Who would wish to get this back ?

If I hear this talk about film and how nice it is - it could be a real bitch getting a good shot even when you tried and sometimes you had plenty of
misses. And don´t tell me you only need to work better. I have seen old guns cry of anger when they where seeing their sheets of a whole days work come out of the E6 and found 80 % screwed for one or another reason. And then this clipping and pushpull nonsense........

Ah I don´t even want to remember all this. Digital is heaven compared to this "good old time".
And if the Digital shot Angels at 200 % enlargement do look less sharper than the devils that may have been on some shots on Film when you were lucky - so what ?

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

 

[timparkin]

The logistics will kill you before the cost does. 8x10 holders are big and heavy. Reloading big sheets of film in the field, if you want to try to economize that way, is a bear. Big view cameras work for me (sometimes) because I'm happy making just a few exposures during an outing, then going home, running a drumload or two in my Jobo and contact printing. If I needed to do high volume capture, processing and enlarging, or to work away from home for any length of time, it would get impractical very, very fast.

I think the best way to shoot 8x10 is to use it in addition to other cameras. Use 4x5 or medium format or DSLR's for most of your work and then when you know you have an ideal location, go and camp it with your 8x10. That way the costs come down massively (unless you think you get dozens of top money shots per year) and you can always carry a GF1 around with you as well as the 8x10.

Personally I have an 8x10, 4x5, Mamiya 7, Mamiya C220, two Canon A1s and an Olympus OM1 plus a Canon 5Dmk2, Panasonic GH1 and LX5 and an iPhone. I've used nearly all of these on a recent 6 day commission by the national park service here in the UK. Only three of the shots were 8x10, one of which is going to be enlarged to 8m x 3m to install behind the reception. over 30 of the shots supplied were taken on my Canon A1 on Portra 160 film which will be used for their 'media pods' (LCD's with the images making up part of a story). The Mamiya 7 supplied a good 20 or so shots and I shot about 16 images on 4x5 and about 12 on the Canon A1 and a couple on the Panasonic LX5.

All my processing was done at home on equipment that would have cost tens of thousands of pounds but that I picked up for a thousand (a Jobo ATL300 and a Howtek 4500 drum scanner).

All of this doesn't make 4x5 and 10x8 any easier than a medium format back but if you can't afford a lump sum payout you can get a system as good for less than 5% of the price if you are willing to adapt to the workflow involved.

All of this talk of film vs digital or MFDB vs 8x10 is besides the point - we're in an amazing time where great film equipment is available at ridiculously cheap prices and where affordable digital cameras are more than capable of producing big prints. The fact that people can make a choice between the two based on aesthetics and budget is a great thing and we shouldn't criticise either system.

I should add that hearing some of the comments here make me wonder how Ansel Adams, David Muench, Peter Dombrovskis and Eliot Porter ever managed to make a picture!! I know enough people that have had problems with MFDB's that have cost them whole sessions before now so a problem free environment it is definitely not!

Tim

 

[Audii-Dudii]

Am I the only one who has gone through this ? Can anybody forget this nonsense ? Who would wish to get this back ?

I guess I must have had it easy, because when I was doing my urban photography with an 8x10, I rarely ever muffed a shot during or screwed up the film afterward. Because I shot mostly out of my car, I wasn't bothered so much by the weight of my camera (a modified Toyo 810G that had been whittled down to a svelte 15 lbs!) or film holders, or the hassles of photographing with it outside of a studio (probably because my longest lens was 210mm and I didn't have to extend the bag bellows very far, so there was limited sail area to catch the wind.)

In my case, it was the cost that drove me away from 8x10 film, pure and simple. I routinely would go through 12 sheets of film during one of my weekly outings, which worked out to $150-180 per week, and then there was the scanning cost, as neither of my 4x5 film scanners could handle it and I wasn't happy with the quality of the consumer-level flatbeds.

I bought my first serious digital camera to use as a scouting camera and one thing lead to another after the labs near my house and office closed, which meant I then had to drive 28 miles each way across town to drop off my film and pick it up after it was developed. I still have everything, though, but I haven't used any of it since 2007. I do miss the easy use of movements and the large, almost TV-like ground glass for composing and focusing.

 

[Jack]

I'm with Stefan, I do not miss any part of the wet workflow, even the totally dry capture part!

 

[jlm]

i miss that sort of meditative time in the dark interleaving 4x5 tri-x sheets. that was better for my head than cursing and re-booting crashed software from time to time.

and nothing is as magical as seeing your image come up in the dektol

but i'm not going back

 

[Bob]

Oh I agree with Stefan for sure on the cumbersome gear and the workflow, but folks that care strive to gain the same or better level of image quality. Some folks have a high expectation of image quality, some are satisfied with lower. Actually most folks are satisfied with pretty miserable levels of quality, but for those who prize it, it is THE thing that drives us to all of the picky things we do in making images.
-bob

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Been many years since I shot film but doing digital only for this many years there is just no way of going back to it. First I have no real desire since personal and commercial work is really almost one in the same anymore. Unfortunate with clients and such they simply want everything yesterday and film is just not the answer. Every once in a blue moon I threaten myself to shoot it again though but just can't pull the trigger. Although I always liked my results it just is a long gone passion for me. Nice work here Though Tim, glad to see some still love the art of shooting it.