The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

MF Digital Precision

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Folks,

reading through all these experiences and the review of Joseph Holmes I come to the conclusion that buying a digital MF system especially for landscape fine art photography and the main use of wide angle lenses is currently a very critical action :confused:

Can anybody give me advise for this? I want to make high resolution large fine art prints from landscapes. I currently scan my 6x6 films from my pst days with a Hasselblad Flextight X5 and achieve great result in printing up to 80'' x 60''. And one of my favorite lenses was in the range of 35mm an a Hasselblad and a Contax 645 - unfortunately all sold now since many years.

Can I achieve the same quality with a modern Phase One camera and a 28mm lens using a P45+???? Or similar gear from Hasselblad?

Or shoud I wait for the Leica S2 which has not the issues of fine adjustment between back and camera and lens? And is expected to have better image quality because of the Leica glass, also and especially in wide angle areas?

Or should I go and buy again a MF analog system (used and cheap) - and work on film for the next few years? Not quite what I want, because scanning and retouching is very time consuming.

I am desperately waiting and listening for your advice :)

Many thanks in advance!
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Tim: First I find it interesting you had trouble dealing with the 28 D's curvature of field issues, the primary reason for its soft corners *at the plane of focus*, yet you put up with the performance variability in the Hartblei... With careful composition, the vagaries of the 28D can be used to advantage (much like forward tilt), or at least it's defects significantly mitigated... Yet I found the Hartblei is so variable in its performance as to be essentially useless.
Meaty points, Jack. Here goes:

I agree that a lot of the 28D's issues are to do with curvature of field, I also agree that that can be used creatively and that is an advantage. However what I want it to do before it offers 'extras' is to do plain vanilla really well and I think we're mostly agreed that largely it can't. I don't mind the top corners being weak, they're usually sky, but for the sort of work I am doing at the moment (and have been for a while now) I really like the 35mm FOV equivalent of the classic 24-28mm lenses and I like the shots (which I am making in fine art series that require consistency) to have front-to back sharpness. I guess I'm just very lucky with my Hartblei in that it is generally pretty good if used in certain ways but in fact if I had one chance of the shot I'd never use it. I use if for stuff where I can see the results on a computer soon and take the shot again if I screwed up. But a lot of the time it does give really nice results with sharp corners. You know I briefly had a Phase version and it was impossible to get a sharp shot with under any conditions so we're agreed that they're very variable.


Second, I heartily disagree that all prints are only as good as their weakest spot. In fact to the contrary, I think selective focus can be a significant benefit to many images, in print or otherwise. I suspect this is one area where your and my thinking differs significantly. Again, your needs are different from mine...
Again, I agree but my point is that I want to be able to choose selective focus rather than have it thrust upon me. This is very personal for each of us and the kind of work we do but nearly all of my current output requires front to back and side to side focus. I have often worked very differently.

I went to (and ended up buying a print from) a show by Nadav Kandar last fall. They were shot on the Yangtze river on 4x5 and 8x10 film, often stitched, and one of the reasons they had such enormous impact was this overall sharpness - even when the subject matter was veiled in fog, you didn't get this sense that the equipment had just given up in the corners. In other words, the corners did not distract. I think the work would have been a lot less good if that had not been the case.

A FWIW to the posterity of this thread: Personally, I don't own a 28D because of the curvature issue combined with the price. But if I needed a lens that wide with any regularity, I would consider one, save for the cost; for the cost I can get a fair bit of the way into a Cambo RS with the 23HR, and that's more likely how I'd go for that focal. Ditto adding a 35 if I used my Mamiya version more than I do... (Another option for landscape wides from a cost versus performance standpoint would be film in a 6x9 view camera and a good scanner.)
I think that'd be right. Since I saw what the Cambo/35XL combination can do I have tended only to use it, or the Phamiya with 80D or 150. I'd love the add the 23HR because not only is it gorgeously wide but it even allows a little shift. I am told that you really do have to use a centre grad filter though, which is a pain. My trip to Iceland made me feel very strongly that if you're going to travel the world with flight cases full of gear, it has to be the most capable gear you can possibly afford! It is ironic (and partly due to my having a lot of new gear with me that I hadn't tested in enough situations) that the one trip I have ever had ruined by gear was the one trip I made with the heaviest and most expensive gear! And the big ruiners with the 28D and my badly thought-out tripod/head rig.

As it stands however, about 85% of my landscapes are shot using 55 through 150 mm focals on the P45+, and I have stellar glass for that -- in fact multiple copies of stellar glass in that range -- that deliver direct capture results on par with the quality I used to get from scanned 4x5 film. And then I manage to get by with the other focals I have for the remaining 15% of my images with that system ;). Which hopefully explains why I have yet to bother with a tech camera solution for MF digital...

Cheers,
Blimey, you and I are basically Jack Spratt and his wife. 85% of my work is shot on the P45+ at 35 and less - or rather it will be when I stump up for the 23HR! Still, I do have some gear to sell!

Cheers also,

Tim
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Tim sorry I disagree as a 30mm lens it is extremely good and i have made LARGE prints. To get a wide angle that is any better start adding the numbers and you know them well it starts at least 10k for a body and a Rodenstock 28mm. Is it worth over twice as much. Not a chance seen it and it is not ,better yes but not twice the price better. I can step back 2 ft if I really need that corner and crop slightly. Tim once again I have a great copy of this 28mm and I have proved it on every post made with the images from it. Sorry but that 10k extra can be better used somewhere else. The tech cameras are great but critical focus is never achieved without being tethered. When there is money on the line I guess at nothing and not everything is shot at F16. I can't shoot any work with a tech camera when there is people involved. Landscape work is not why i bought a 28mm lens. It's advertising with subjects and such, no tech camera is going to help me there.
And I'd never say that the 28D is wrong for you - it clearly suits you incredibly well! But I almost never shoot people or products. I think I have a great copy too and don't doubt that the technical achievement of its design is amazing. It's still not sharp in the corners though. So it turns my 39mp camera with a 28mm lens into a 30mp camera with a 35mm lens if I am willing to crop.

The place where I disagree is that 'double the price but not double the quality' is a bad equation. For my stuff I will pay with money, sweat and time for the last ounce of quality. For all my current work, to all intents and purposes I want the camera not to be there at all as far as the viewer is concerned. So if it costs me twice as much to get sharpness over 100% of the frame rather than 85% of the frame then so be it. It may not sound fair but it is what it is - and you are luckier than I in that your needs and objectives don't force you to spend the silly money! Though Guy, this is you, and you are a gear whore by your own admission so maybe you should think again!

;-)

Tim
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Folks,

reading through all these experiences and the review of Joseph Holmes I come to the conclusion that buying a digital MF system especially for landscape fine art photography and the main use of wide angle lenses is currently a very critical action :confused:

Can anybody give me advise for this? I want to make high resolution large fine art prints from landscapes. I currently scan my 6x6 films from my pst days with a Hasselblad Flextight X5 and achieve great result in printing up to 80'' x 60''. And one of my favorite lenses was in the range of 35mm an a Hasselblad and a Contax 645 - unfortunately all sold now since many years.

Can I achieve the same quality with a modern Phase One camera and a 28mm lens using a P45+???? Or similar gear from Hasselblad?
The bad new is, no. Not at all, unless you are able to forgive soggy corner sharpness or use it creatively. I am currently making work for a couple of upcoming shows and having used the 28D in the early stages of the project, I now know that it is not capable of making large, beautiful prints of the type I need.

The good news is that if you get a P45+ back, a Cambo RS or Alpa Max or XY and a Schneider or Rodenstock lens of 35mm or 23mm you will be able to get critical sharpness across the frame and you'll be able to stitch to get 80mp files that will make very, very nice prints.

The Hassy guys will no doubt defend their 28mm lens but I have seen results from it that a Hassy dealer was very pleased with and they sucked in a low key way. Similar to the Phase/Mamiya 28D, possibly slightly worse.


Or shoud I wait for the Leica S2 which has not the issues of fine adjustment between back and camera and lens? And is expected to have better image quality because of the Leica glass, also and especially in wide angle areas?
Maybe. Leica has a recent history of delivering problems with its solutions. I use and love an M8.2 and a lot of their incredible glass so I know what it can do but for me the critical question is, 'if the S2 is as good as people are hoping for, will I trade in for it?' and the answer is 'maybe but probably not because the sensor is still not quite big enough and because I like being able to use my P45+ on a tech camera with shift'. In any event, if you can wait it would be sensible to do so just in case the S2 is amazing. If it has great higher ISO performance that would swing it for me and I'll just have to get into nodal point stitching!


Or should I go and buy again a MF analog system (used and cheap) - and work on film for the next few years? Not quite what I want, because scanning and retouching is very time consuming.

I am desperately waiting and listening for your advice :)

Many thanks in advance!
There have been times that I have wished I hadn't sold my 4x5 film field camera. Then I remember the shoddy, slow processing, the dust, the scratches, the inability to chimp and the fact that a scanner good enough to compete with a MF digi back costs about as much as a MF digi back! I also think that a correctly set up shot on a P45+ at ISO 50 is better than anything I got from 4x5 film.

Hope that helps,

Tim
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I went to (and ended up buying a print from) a show by Nadav Kandar last fall. They were shot on the Yangtze river on 4x5 and 8x10 film, often stitched, and one of the reasons they had such enormous impact was this overall sharpness - even when the subject matter was veiled in fog, you didn't get this sense that the equipment had just given up in the corners. In other words, the corners did not distract. I think the work would have been a lot less good if that had not been the case.
And look at Burtinsky's work, also shot primarily with 8x10 or more recently the China series, on 4x5. Perhaps you should consider moving to a good 4x5 camera and lenses for your desired wide-view, large-output work?

FTR, I came to MF digital from large format film, 4x5 and 8x10, not from a DSLR like many have. Again, this is probably where my expectations are vastly different than yours. Oh, and for the record, center grads are the norm when shooting large format film with short lenses too, so they are inescapable if you want quality. As is the sturdiest tripod and head combo you can carry...

Blimey, you and I are basically Jack Spratt and his wife. 85% of my work is shot on the P45+ at 35 and less - or rather it will be when I stump up for the 23HR! Still, I do have some gear to sell!
Well there you go. Seriously if you are after the ultimate quality for huge prints from images made with short lenses, I would suggest a good fieldable 4x5 camera like an Arca, Ebony or Linhof, and then use the 47XL, 58XL, 72XL (or 80XL) and 110XL lenses. FTR, divide by three to get a rough conversion to the equivalent 35 focal. Oh, and you will need CF's on the 72/80 if you use movements -- and you will need movements with them if you want the corner to corner sharpness you are looking for, because you cannot stop down far enough to carry the DoF you'll want. And you'll need CF's on the 58 and 47 even if you only use them "zeroed." ;)

Next you'll need a good spot meter and need to know how to use it -- and don't forget to apply the CF and bellows extension corrections.

Then all you need to add is a good scanner like the Imacon X5...

Cheers,
 

Francois_A

New member
Moreover, one could also take a shot on a Betterlight scanning back in addition to 4x5 film. The image on film would be handy to correct anything that has moved during the scan!
The best of both worlds!:thumbs:
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
And look at Burtinsky's work, also shot primarily with 8x10 or more recently the China series, on 4x5. Perhaps you should consider moving to a good 4x5 camera and lenses for your desired wide-view, large-output work?


Cheers,
Sorry Buddy, been there and done that! My 4x5 cam and kit were part of my trade-in for the Phase gear. I can safely say that I won't be going back to film. Not in a million!

T
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Thanks Tim,

I will see what I will do, but all existing solutions seem not workable for me. Maybe the S2 will be better dealing with all that mess.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Sorry Buddy, been there and done that! My 4x5 cam and kit were part of my trade-in for the Phase gear. I can safely say that I won't be going back to film. Not in a million!

T
Okay, glad we got that settled. Now perhaps we should rethink attempting to obtain equivalent results from a system that has less than 1/4 the capture area...

:D,
 

KeithL

Well-known member
I want to make high resolution large fine art prints from landscapes. I currently scan my 6x6 films from my pst days with a Hasselblad Flextight X5 and achieve great result in printing up to 80'' x 60''.
Really, if you can make high resolution 80"x60" fine art prints from 6x6 film that you would define as great then you have discovered the Holy Grail and should stick with it.

Personally I wouldn't take 5x4 sheet film up to that size, let alone anything that comes out of a roll film camera.
 

routlaw

Member
Moreover, one could also take a shot on a Betterlight scanning back in addition to 4x5 film. The image on film would be handy to correct anything that has moved during the scan!
The best of both worlds!
I suspect, but could be wrong not having tried it, this might be much harder to implement than imagine. However on a few occasions with the Betterlight in the field I have scanned the same image 2 or 3 times (conditions permitting) with the intent of merging the best of each for any problem areas of movement etc.

Having followed this thread thoroughly and after reading Joseph Holmes reports as well as looking at the images he posted on the issues of MFDB landscape work, I must say has nipped in the bud at least for now the fascination and ongoing interest in adopting this method of capture for my own work.

Rob
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I suspect, but could be wrong not having tried it, this might be much harder to implement than imagine. However on a few occasions with the Betterlight in the field I have scanned the same image 2 or 3 times (conditions permitting) with the intent of merging the best of each for any problem areas of movement etc.

Having followed this thread thoroughly and after reading Joseph Holmes reports as well as looking at the images he posted on the issues of MFDB landscape work, I must say has nipped in the bud at least for now the fascination and ongoing interest in adopting this method of capture for my own work.

Rob
Rob, that would be a shame and I am sure it wouldn't be his intention: one of his key arguments is that a lot of people are satisfied with less than optimal results from MFD because they haven't really grasped what it can do when used at its best. I, like him, think that you need to be informed, well advised, critical and methodical but I think we also both think that done properly a P45+ back gives results that better scanned 4x5 film.

I know that he's about to crop up in this forum himself and can go into more detail on his own behalf but actually I read his articles as meaning that the game is quite certainly worth the candle. You just need to know a lot about the candle.

Tim
 
Last edited:

Francois_A

New member
Equally important to resolution IMO is dynamic range. I bought a Canon G1 after reading the rave review on LL. My fist big deception was the poor exposure latitude of the camera; just as contrasty, if not more, as slide film.
A big plus for me in moving to MFDB or a scanning back would be the increased exposure latitude and improved tonal transitions.

It is something hard to quantify, and depends on how much noise one is willing to tolerate, but I wonder if there is any digital solution short of hdr that would allow placing the shadows on zone III and still maintain details in highlights falling on zone VIII, just like one could do with b&w and normal development ?

Thanks everyone contributing to this thread; very enlightening!

Francois
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
l but I think we also both think that done properly a P45+ back gives results that better scanned 4x5 film.
Hmmm... Don't know about that. Properly captured, processed and scanned 4x5 is a thing of remarkable beauty and detail.

Personally, I'd say that a perfectly captured and scanned 4x5 piece of say Pro 160S will have more detail than the best P45+ file. I'd also say you will likely have more P45+ files closer to perfection than you will 4x5 Astia frames, and that in general, the P45+ files will have broader dynamic range to boot...

Cheers,
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Hmmm... Don't know about that. Properly captured, processed and scanned 4x5 is a thing of remarkable beauty and detail.

Personally, I'd say that a perfectly captured and scanned 4x5 piece of say Pro 160S will have more detail than the best P45+ file. I'd also say you will likely have more P45+ files closer to perfection than you will 4x5 Astia frames, and that in general, the P45+ files will have broader dynamic range to boot...

Cheers,
I agree. It's not a slam-dunk in either direction but for me, counting all factors, I get what I feel are better results with the digiback. However there's very little in photographic life that gives as much visceral pleasure as seeing a freshly developed 4x5 tranny on a lightbox with a loupe...
:thumbs:
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I agree. It's not a slam-dunk in either direction but for me, counting all factors, I get what I feel are better results with the digiback. However there's very little in photographic life that gives as much visceral pleasure as seeing a freshly developed 4x5 tranny on a lightbox with a loupe...
:thumbs:
We're on the same wavelength. I'd agree I get a higher percentage of keepers with MF, and for sure it's more convenient than sheet film, but I still feel my best 4x5's are a notch better than my best P45+ files. The other visceral pleasure for me aside from seeing the fine result, was knowing that I'd mastered the technology of the view cam enough to have created it :)
 

routlaw

Member
Equally important to resolution IMO is dynamic range... A big plus for me in moving to MFDB or a scanning back would be the increased exposure latitude and improved tonal transitions.

Francois
Francois, this is a very important point! I have felt we all too often obsess over resolution far too much (to the point of absurdity at times) and at the cost of other important factors which you mentioned. Not the least of which is the CONTENT of an image. But it is so easy to get wrapped up in the technological possibilities and options at the expense of drama or beauty.

Oddly some of the most memorable photographs which come to mind seldom have anything to do with perceived detail and resolution, but rather the content. Just some passing thoughts.

Rob
 
E

ericstaud

Guest
Thanks Tim,

I will see what I will do, but all existing solutions seem not workable for me. Maybe the S2 will be better dealing with all that mess.
The problem with wide angle lenses is the giant mirror box SLR's put between the lens and film. If you want wide lenses with minimal or no distortion that are sharp to the corners then buy a camera without a mirror box. The S2 will not magically overcome these issues is my guess.

Any digital sensor that has lens put right up next to it will also have trouble with color uniformity (lens cast, white shading, custom gain, blah blah blah). So the tradeoff for truly sharp wides and low distortion is having to deal with the color cast workflow of whatever manufacturer you choose. For many photographers this is worth it, and still less of pain than film, processing, and scanning.
 

Francois_A

New member
I have felt we all too often obsess over resolution far too much (to the point of absurdity at times) and at the cost of other important factors which you mentioned. Not the least of which is the CONTENT of an image. But it is so easy to get wrapped up in the technological possibilities and options at the expense of drama or beauty.

Oddly some of the most memorable photographs which come to mind seldom have anything to do with perceived detail and resolution, but rather the content. Just some passing thoughts.

Rob
I wholeheartedly agree Rob! Speaking of content, it is worth quoting Ansel Adams:

"... in discussing mechanical or optical issues we must not lose sight of the much greater importance of image content--emotional, aesthetic, or literal. I believe there is nothing more disturbing than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept!" The Negative, p. 73

Francois
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
FI have felt we all too often obsess over resolution far too much (to the point of absurdity at times) and at the cost of other important factors which you mentioned. Not the least of which is the CONTENT of an image.
Heretic!!! :ROTFL:

Seriously Rob, you've hit the nail on the head. It's the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread.

Cheers,
 
Top