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!

8x10 vs IQ180

DDudenbostel

Active member
BTW has anyone actually shot 8 X 10 view camera's. I used to use a Horseman 8x10 but I would have killed for a Sinar.
For over thirty years the majority of my commercial work was large format from 4x5 to 11x14 both in studio and location. At the peak of catalog season I shot over 250 sheets of 8x10 transparency film a week plus 4x5 and 11x14. I shot the majority with a Sinar Norma and Deardorff.

99.9% of my work is now digital and has been for about thirteen years. As much as I love digital I still love the look of film. There's a depth to film and prints from film that digital just doesn't have. I think there's more to making a beautiful image than everything being pixel sharp.

True that clients just don't have time and money for those big shoots now. I don't think the majority would even be able to see the difference or even care. I'm afraid those days are gone and the $20-100K shoots are gone at least for the remainder of my career.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
There's something much more rewarding about exposing, printing and processing your own film. To play with recipes using temp and time, to create something that's tangible- tactile!
Most certainly, the learning curve with digital has ben reduced, but for me, film, with all its wonderful attributes and variables, seems so much more skillful than digital. Shooting digital is a must though, in my area of photography, but when there's not a deadline or client, i'll grab my film gear for the pure enjoyment of art!
 

thrice

Active member
Okay John vinyl it is. LOL

I still have a 14 year old in the house and he has no clue what a cassette is, never mind who the Beatles are. LOL
Guy, to be fair, Vinyl holds MUCH more information than CD (and is clearly audible). Unlike digital photography, digital audio doesn't have the duality of smaller and/or better - only smaller.

I think you need to play some Beatles on vinyl in the house :)

One day I hope to be using an uncropped digital MFDB with a tech cam and my new (to me) Hasselblad :D until that day comes it'll be the M9, Hasselblad with film, and 4x5 with film... I don't really feel hard done by :p
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
There's something much more rewarding about exposing, printing and processing your own film. To play with recipes using temp and time, to create something that's tangible- tactile!
I've been into photography since '73, professional and printing my own work since '75 (originally had one of those tubes you floated and spun in a water bath to process a 16x20 sheet of color paper), while I agree that experiencing analog/chemical photography was great, I personally think digital as more rewarding, especially if you do 100% of it yourself, capture, post processing and output.

Not disputing your point of view ... to each their own ....
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Has anybody compared a analog print of film (vs a scan) to a print from digital?
to me this seems to be what is usually missing in these types of exercises, so they really don't prove much of anything.

The real test would be perfectly captured IQ180 (tech camera, expert tech cam user, expert C1 and photoshop user) and perfectly captured 8x10, perfectly scanned and processed and both printed by an expert printer on the highest quality output device.

then start printing bigger and bigger and see what point one surpasses the other (if one does).

Yeah, I know. A lot of work and really not much reason. Both produce truly stunning large prints so pick your medium and have fun.
 

goesbang

Member
Well the biggest learning experience that the new generation will never know is learning your craft learning it really well before you knock down 20 lights and go home for the day shooting blind and not TRULY knowing if you nailed it or you completely failed at it and lost a client. Some folks have no idea how easy it is today. Than they cry about live view. Hell we barely had meters that worked never mind seeing anything. I'm glad they are memories now.

BTW has anyone actually shot 8 X 10 view camera's. I used to use a Horseman 8x10 but I would have killed for a Sinar.
You are right. The learning curve can be climbed much faster with digital. Instant, detailed feedback. I hated the "approximation" of polaroids and waiting for E6 clip tests was a real drag too.

Yes I shot 8x10, though I generally preferred 5x4 and 6x12 rollfilm backs on view cameras. I moved from a Sinar P to a Horseman LX and rate the Horseman the better of the two. The LX was a huge improvement over the earlier Horseman and had in-plane movements in addition to yaw-free tilts. It also avoided that stupid rail-clamp on the Sinar, replacing it with a geared drive that was a godsend for precision work.
 

goesbang

Member
There's something much more rewarding about exposing, printing and processing your own film. To play with recipes using temp and time, to create something that's tangible- tactile!
Most certainly, the learning curve with digital has ben reduced, but for me, film, with all its wonderful attributes and variables, seems so much more skillful than digital. Shooting digital is a must though, in my area of photography, but when there's not a deadline or client, i'll grab my film gear for the pure enjoyment of art!
Hats off to you for saying that you love the process. Finally, someone is honest about this.
I'm tired of hearing the "but film has that certain quality to it" guff. There is virtually no film made whose look cannot be replicated by a knowledgeable person with the right gear. The colour characteristics can be replicated, the local micro-contrast and tonal transitions too. Even the tonality can be reproduced. The problem is that the average hack does not have this knowledge, but this does not justify a claim that the film "look" cannot be achieved digitally.
 

pipzz

New member
> The problem is that the average hack does not have this knowledge, but this does not justify a claim that the film "look" cannot be achieved digitally.

BTW, could you recommend some truly great digital artists working nowadays to see they work?

I used to saw 15 Karsh's portraits at Fujifilm plaza in Tokyo, right after very nice and big color prints (digital and from film) exposed at the same building. It's fan, but color gallery was crowded, while Karsh exibition was almost empty. I saw this Karsh exibition two times already in Chicago, and now for third time in Tokyo. But in Tokyo it was right after I saw big color prints, and I must say that it was quite something. Color prints were nice, perfect, exceptional details, no noise etc.

But it was something magical in Karsh prints, they are not big, like 16x20". I stick my nose close to prints (I didn't dare to do this in Chicago) I saw sometimes only sharp eyes on prints, but nose was out of focus. But once I step back, I saw like live person on the print. Prints were completely 3D objects and I can see them without any 3D glasses. We sat at bench and truly enjoy those Prints. Those Prints radiate power, as my lovely wife said after.
 
S

SCHWARZZEIT

Guest
Bryan, how can you draw the conclusion from Zuber's flawed (8x10" crops were obviously out of focus) test that a properly focused 80 MP back with tech glass is always outresolving 8x10" film?

Maybe it has been your personal experience that non of your 8x10" films had image detail that require a larger file than 80 MP to be fully represented.
But you come off as ignorant if you claim that this has to be the case for every 8x10" shooter out there.
However, I'm sure for the work you do the IQ180 and your other backs are probably the right tools helping you get exactly what you want at the speed you need it.

My personal experience has been that it takes significantly more than a 100 MP file to store all the real image information contained in my properly focused 8x10" films. It is very obvious to see when I reduce my image files to only 110 MP that lots of real detail gets lost in the process. Even some of my 4x5" negatives contain finer detail than could be displayed with only 80 MP. As an example I provide a full-resolution landscape shot captured on 4x5" Fuji Acros 100 with the Schneider 110XL at f/16.3. It's a 6000 ppi drum scan with a slight amount of smart sharpening for viewing on screen. After cropping the film rebate the image is about 650 MP. Yes, it's not tack sharp on 1:1 pixel level. Now the question is how well does an IQ180 or Aptus-II 12 file take an enlargement to 650 MP? Any non-stitched samples?

This is the same shot reduced to about 80 MP.

With film the effective resolution depends a lot on the object contrast of the detail. As soon as it drops the resolution of film drops with it. This is the analog nature of film. You can say that the films goes soft, but you can also say that it helps to retain a natural depth of contrast. To me it simply looks more natural than the pumped up micro contrast in so many digital images.
I would agree that the IQ180 shots I've seen at base sensitivity have less noise than what I get as grain texture even from very fine grained 4x5" negative film like Fuji Acros.

We even made tests with 35mm high-res microfilm like Adox CMS 20. This film needs a special developer to be used photographically. It's only 5-6 ASA but it can resolve high contrast detail below 2 microns, basically the diffraction limit at f5.6.

Of course with digital stitching it's possible build multi-gigapixel images outresolving any one shot system.

When it comes to dynamic range I wonder where those super DR images of the IQ180 or any other back are that show something that color neg cannot handle. Could you show an example?

I never feel limited in DR when using color neg if I expose for the shadows, even in high contrast urban night scenes. On the other hand I see blown highlights with colored halos on similar non HDR digital captures. Why is that if the sensors have so much dynamic range?

The closest DR to color neg I've seen in digital capture came from the RED Epic in HDRx mode, a sort of on-the-fly double exposure HDR processing. Very clever, but not very useful for long exposures where the scene changes during exposure time.

-Dominique
 

micek

Member
There is virtually no film made whose look cannot be replicated by a knowledgeable person with the right gear. The colour characteristics can be replicated, the local micro-contrast and tonal transitions too. Even the tonality can be reproduced. The problem is that the average hack does not have this knowledge, but this does not justify a claim that the film "look" cannot be achieved digitally.
I'd be interested to know what you understand by film look, since you seem to admit its existence, and what exactly sets it apart from a digital look.

In any case, no sophisticated or arcane digital knowledge is necessary to achieve a film look: just shoot film.

Finally, someone is honest about this.
I'm tired of hearing the "but film has that certain quality to it" guff.
I don't understand this vehemence, why should it bother you that some can perceive a certain quality in work produced via a certain technique?
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
For me film is long past it's usefulness but it was great learning tool through the years and really all we had. I'm glad I lived in that time frame but also glad it's over. It's been close to maybe 14 years since I shot film and I simply do not miss it. To me any comparison is a moot point since no client of mine would even entertain it's use now.
Alas, Guy, I think far too many people share your sentiment...
The usefulness of film cannot be understated, as the fundamentals of all photography are steeped in its heritage. Teaching theory, and mastering a light meter - the effects of aperture and shutter. The use of the zone system for exposure, and understanding DOF, make it a very useful medium indeed. The usefulness this provides allows a photographer to look through the frame and think about the importance of composition or the rule of thirds - a technique master painters have been using for hundreds of years! Then when they pick up a digital camera they'll appreciate the difference, and their photographs will show it.
Just because a stradivarius can be replicated digitally, doesn't mean its usefulness is limited...it teaches us an appreciation, that quite frankly, digital does not. Shooting 200 frames in a few minutes, you'll eventually get something, or you can fix it in the computer or add elements that weren't even there. Digital photographers should reconnect with their heritage, swap your DB with a film back when clients aren't staring over your shoulder and reconnect with it as an art form, if not for just the recognition and enjoyment! I think film should be mandatory for a digital photography class - to use film a a final exam of sorts. To make certain the understanding of photography is firmly fixed, so it becomes habit.

In 1942, Ansel Adams photographed "The Tetons and The Snake River", it has inspired myself and many other photographers to understand and appreciate the skill involved in capturing the essence of that moment. Something that has compelled me as a digital/film photographer to appreciate film's usefulness.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Both produce truly stunning large prints so pick your medium and have fun.
This is T H E most salient point so far, IMHO.

However, a critical caveat is the "perfectly captured, processed and printed" part. I've done it all with both, and after some basic mastery for each medium, it's geometrically more difficult to achieve and a more time consuming job with the 8x10...
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well I kind of agree having a even small film experience is a great thing for teaching. No anything all based on instinct nothing to preview and no automation . At least one good solid week of shooting and processing , maybe a month would be better. My issue today is the famous phrase Ill fix it in photoshop. What ever happened to the rule of the era that I grew up in. Everything MUST be done in camera. Frankly I still do everything in camera and that comes directly from film and the years I put into it. We had the 8 x 10 cam but I mostly used 4x5 because of costs and speed of operation but I would love to see more use of this for teaching reasons. For commerce film just does not make it anymore but for fine art , personal work and for teaching it's a great medium. Now does it compare equally to a 80 mpx back. Heck does it really matter when your dictated in commerce to shoot digital. So for me it is a moot point and folks will defend film till there grave and I get that no question. I learned the zone system from Fred Pickers number 1 guru and it was a wonderful learning experience and honestly we still use it but we use it
without realizing it too. Let's face what is a histogram anyway, it's the zone between black and white. So is the zone system. LOL

Nothing really has changed just done different, the principles are still in place.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Let's even forget Ansels work for a second. I think more importantly he should be given far more credit for inspiring photographers to go down this path. Man I would love to be recognized like that when I kick the bucket. What a tribute.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I've always seen a difference between film and digital. I love the look and feel of film with its random grain as opposed to regimented pixels ... mostly B&W.

However, I'm simply too lazy to keep doing it properly ... and as Guy says, not one single client will put up with the cost and time of film.

-Marc
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
My issue today is the famous phrase Ill fix it in photoshop. What ever happened to the rule of the era that I grew up in. Everything MUST be done in camera.
It was fixed in the darkroom. Laboriously, but informatively. The same fixes applied manually for each print. Ugh! I miss film cameras (Yashicamat FTW!) but I don't miss film.

Best,

Matt
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Economics, speed, convenience, digital wins, but did we learn anything about photography? Comparing a histogram with the zone system is a good idea, it would teach composition using tonal values too. The quality of the IQ180 is not questioned, but are there any lenses to really exploit the DB?
Digital converts signals to arithmetic, sensors have depth and patterns that have a predictable outcome, and film uses silver halides along with chemistry - whose outcome depends on ratios, temperature, duration, manipulation, and most importantly - technique...what's to compare? Film is boot camp for photography, digital is the video game version that you can reset.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
While I'm no expert in large format film, I've been puzzled by some elements of the test, and I'm not sure what conclusion I'm supposed to arrive at.
Perhaps I am handicapped because I look at a lot of tests and data.

First, this is not a quantitative test--there are no measurements that can be made. This is a qualitative test.

The conditions were stated. So our the conclusions are limited to those.

The images are the results. The 8x10 image did not have the resolving power of the IQ180.

Simple.

Folks say it is because of the scan resolution. I think we can say that is not the reason as the image is clearly not undersampled--the image is soft and more pixels while adding a little more detail will not significantly improve the image--neither will magically look like digital. Undersamplying tend to result in sharper images, not soft ones.

So could it be the 8x10 camera conditions. Certainly different optics, apertures, film flatness, focus could all impact the image which would improve it. But the image is clearly not a result of bad operator error. So any improvement would be incremental, but also to the point were it will not catch the IQ180. But as a systemic test of an 8x10 system, you can expect these results as at least average. Just as you can expect the IQ180 as average which is a systemic result including image processing.

So the result shows large sensors can have much better resolving power to proportionally large sheets of film. What is so hard about that?

Now you can try to ignore the results by pointing out the limits of the test, but that will not change the basic result. This is a simple statement about the ability of these systems to resolve. That is it. It does not ask which system is "better." That will ultimately come down to the individual photographer and the results they want to achieve. There are somethings, at least with photographers that really understand what systems and processes can impart to an image, that cannot be replaced by another system--there is more to photography than just resolving power.

There is one more result. No matter which system you use, you can come out with some pretty boring images with great clarity.
 
Top