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

goesbang

Member
This is a commentary on the recent article by Markus Zuber, published on Luminous Landscape. If you haven’t read it yet : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml




Markus Zuber’s article raises a number of issues, both technical and philosophical.

One of the challenges is raising these comparisons is the question of whether one is talking about one as a replacement for the other or simply using one as a benchmark to measure the other against. Markus doesn’t make his approach clear, but most times I have witnessed or participated in this discussion, the underlying implication is one of “Is X good enough to replace Y”.
I’d suggest that there is another approach that can add a different perspective to the discussion. Asking the question “What are the capabilities of X and what new opportunities/methods does is offer for image making”. One of the problems with the approach of comparing something new with the older thing you have been using is that it focuses your attention on an implied assumption that what you were doing was the “right way”. It’s sometimes helpful to ignore the tried and true and look for new possibilities. For me, the arrival of my IQ180 a few months back has been a revelation.

Live focus is a huge asset on the IQ series backs. It is particularly valuable when using longer lenses with tech cameras. I mostly use it when shooting interiors with ultra-wides and when using a close foreground element to lead the eye from in my landscapes. I do not understand why anyone would even attempt to use a groundglass to focus an ALPA if you are shooting on a MFDB. For one thing, the image is too small and the groundglass image too coarse to make meaningful judgements. Forget about seeing anything of value outside the centre of image with wider lenses. Even if you do manage to make meaningful focus settings on the groundglass, it is very hard to ensure that your sensor is in the same plane as your groundglass. With and ALPA, the shimming of backs gives you precision to the 100ths of a millimetre, one of this systems major strengths. You risk losing that precision using a GG to focus. As someone who once did more than 90% of his professional work on a view camera, I understand the comfort of relying on the method you have used with great success in the past. However, the precision required by tech cams and MFDB renders GG focusing obsolete. {Of course, if you are shooting film on your ALPA, the n a GG is valuable but not infallible}. Before I shot with my IQ180, I would guestimate or laser the distance, then rely on the accuracy of ALPA’s HPF rings to give me a strike rate on focus approaching 100% with both my P45+ and P65+. For me, the IQ back on my Alpa is the best workflow I have ever had on an tech cam, as far as focus is concerned. Lets not forget that GG focussing meand exposing your sensor to a lot more risk from impact damage and dust ingress….

Marks statement “ Knowing well that the AF does not really serve well at least with the 55” has me wondering if his generalization means I’ve missed out on some commonly known wisdom. I happen to own the 55, 80 and 110 Schneiders and they focus spot-on in AF. I have a few friends who have no focus problems with their 55’s in AF mode.

These tests clearly demonstrate what many have known for some time – that the “legendary” status of 8x10 as the image quality champion is just that – a legend. The need to shoot at f32 or smaller has always meant that diffraction significantly degrades image quality. Other problems common to large format sheet film such as the lack of film flatness (resulting in the film plane not being in the same place as your groundglass) further compound the problem. The tonality and creaminess often attributed to 8x10 are really a lack of true resolution masked by the fact that many 8x10 images were printed at relatively modest magnification. I make prints from my P65+, Aptus 12 and my IQ180 at sizes exceeding 1.5meters that a print from an 8x10 image simply cannot come close to matching for absolute resolution and edge-to-edge sharpness. The fact that I can achieve this extraordinary outcome with a package as small as an Alpa STC with an IQ180 and a couple of lenses of the extraordinary quality available from Rodenstock, Schneider, Alpa etc is the truly exciting thing about being a photographer in this day and age. The 8x10 is the champ argument simply does not stand up and has not for some time. Your test prove this yet again.

A word of caution about diffraction. MF tech cam lenses of recent design are optimised for use at much larger apertures than conventional wisdom suggests. This is compounded by pixel-level diffraction increasing as pixel sizes get smaller. My 23HR digaron for example, is noticeably softer at f16 than at f8 on my IQ180. The difference was not as obvious on my P65+ which has slightly larger pixels. However, this lens is so good, I am happy shooting at f5.6, provided I can focus accurately.

“The film could easily reveal more details, if they would be projected to it’s surface”. Actually, this is one of the Achilles heels of film, especially colour emulsions. Because film is made by layering several layers of emulsion, each sensitive to different wavelengths of light, on top of each other, light striking the top surface us progressively scattered or diffused as it penetrates the emulsion stack to reach the lower layers. As such, the image on the lower emulsion layer is more diffused (less resolution and contrast) than at the surface. The corrollory of this is that with digital sensors, there is a flat plane and therefore a lot to be gained by precise placement of focus. Hence Alpa’s shimming of backs is of even greater significance with digital backs. The sensor, if properly placed, can utilize the resolution delivered by the lens, where film could not maximize this.

“Film could easily reveal more details”. How? As you’ve already demonstrated, an IQ180 (and by logical extension, the Aptus12) on a tech cam such as an Alpa can outresolve 8x10 film. Add to this the fact that the IQ180 has not one but several more stops more dynamic range than film (The Kodak and Fuji tranny films I used to use had 6.3 stops range in normal E6 processing) as well.
IQ 180 files record and reveal much, much more detail than any colour or monochromatic film I have ever used.

“As we have seen with all Phase One backs, it is very important to get as much to the right as possible (I assume Markus means on the histogram). Underexposed images suffer from noise and bad colours”. Hmmm…. I’m curious, does this mean there is a manufacturer out there with a back for which this is not true?(I want one!!) I’ve owned or shot with backs from Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad, Kodak, Sinar, Canon and Nikon and this is true for all of them. It’s fair to say that all current MF backs are much more tolerant of exposure error than any colour emulsion made. Ever push-processed a colour film more than a stop? You get grainy shadows (read: Noise) and massive colour shifts. In fact not just linear colour shifts but significant colour crossovers. The IQ180 in particular, easily outperforms film in this regard, and all other backs with the possible exception of its stable-mate, the Aptus 12.
I own both, so I’m speaking from first-hand experience. I’m not sure what Markus’s point is in the context of a comparison between 8x10 film and the IQ180. Yes, if you underexpose significantly with this back, you get noise and colour shifts, but in my view, much less than if you underexposed film the same amount.

I fail to understand how the screen in the IQ displays an image from a 110mm lens any differently from a 28mm. It’s displaying the same proportion of both images at whatever percentage of magnification you’ve chosen. It’s value as a focus checking device seems to me to be identical whatever lens I attach.

On the subject of the IQ180’s performance as a B&W device, it is astounding. I shot a lot of large format monochrome in my film days and am well versed with advanced zone system and processing/printing techniques. I have also shot extensively with the Phase One Achromatic back. For panchromatic use (I have not tested IR or UV applications), the IQ180 is simply the best B&W device I have ever shot with. It has much more dynamic range than film, higher resolution than 8x10 film (as Markus has shown us) and with precise use of advanced post-processing techniques, capable of delivering a richness of tone and detail I’ve never seen before.

The kicker for me is that we now have a back which, combined with our camera of choice (I use mine on Alpa STC, Phase 645DF and Fuji GX680 platforms) is able to realistically deliver quality that exceeds 8x10 on a number of levels, is much more portable, user friendly and incredibly versatile. It has already altered the way I work in a number of ways and opened up imagemaking possibilities I had not imagined possible even a couple of years ago.

A big thank you to Markus for taking the time not only to run these tests, but also for taking the time to document and share it with us all.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I certainly agree with the results of the test. But I don't agree with some of the statements you are making. You don't "need" any specific aperture to shoot any specific format. The "emulsion thickness" and "can't focus MFD on ground glass" are two of the biggest myth being circulated--do you actually know how thick a color emulsion is? (not the base, but the actual emulsion? (while the photosite may be flat, the sensor construction has depth)). And I certainly can get the same DR if not more from negatives films than my MFD. And all the transparency film I shot have more DR than 6.3 stops. I have extensive experience in film format up to 8x10 and MFD.

I think the film/digital debates are passed their due dates. We have enough myths in photography without the need to create more.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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.
 

goesbang

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.
+1

Amen.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Ditto :)

But I think film still holds a place as a viable "art" medium, and think it should.
 

Thierry

New member
+1

Thierry

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.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
For fine art I would put it as another medium to work in. For commerce it simply is over like 8 track tapes. Clients are too demanding on time and resources to deal with it.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
There are very few uses for film in scientific imaging--something I do. And I am talking very few--0.01%. Film certainly has a place in creative photography. And there are people who enjoy the process--I assume we can have fun with photography.

I think the film/digital conflict has really soured conversations in photography. Folks were/are taking it far too personally and folks started to overestimate the relevance of certain technical aspects of photography, or they just started to make things up. I do a fair amount of teaching in applied and scientific imaging and the garbage some people come out with is incredible.

Setting aesthetic/subjective criteria aside, there is no question in terms of resolution sensors are far better. I just hung a 12 foot panorama up today and the quality is not something I could not have achieved with a film area twice or three times the size. And the work that I do in microscopy is just not possible with film.

On the other hand, I just saw recent work done with a wet plate process. Very beautiful images. A look I cannot duplicate digitally.

And here is the problem. We have creative photographers attacking each other over how much resolution they have rather than enjoying each others work.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Markus Zuber’s article raises a number of issues, both technical and philosophical.
It actually does neither. The test is quite clear. Conclusion are easy to make.
 

Thierry

New member
:thumbup:

Thierry
...I assume we can have fun with photography...
...
... And here is the problem. We have creative photographers attacking each other over how much resolution they have rather than enjoying each others work.
 

jotloob

Subscriber 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.
+1 :thumbup:

I took the plunge from MF/LF film to MF digital about six years ago and although the learning curve was steep and the plunge expensive , i think this was a very good decision . I will definately not go back but shoot with film from time to time with my vintage HASSELBLADS . Its still some fun .
 

pophoto

New member
I'm joining in because I learnt something today, and Bryan, you articulated your thoughts clearly, and enjoyed the read!

Thanks
Po
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
It actually does neither. The test is quite clear. Conclusion are easy to make.
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.

Was it a test of pure resolving power? Then why was there such an amazingly deep scene used where DoF plays such a major role. Or was it to validate better images because of use of a smaller format/wider lens and achieve more acceptable depth of field at the optimal setting of the lens?

So maybe I missed it, but I didn't see what the plane of focus was. Most of the detail comparisons were at various distances, so couldn't it be some of what is showing is depth of field differences (to me it looks like being out of focus on the 8x10 may be as much a problem as lack of resolution issues)?

I'm also puzzled at the comparisons. They show identical sized portions of the original image, enlarged to x00% then reduced to xx%. But the 8x10 scans were smaller pixel dimensions. Seems this would require the 8x10 files to be uprezzed at a different level than the IQ180 files to achieve the 1-1 relationship we see in the comparisons, exaggerating difference of the 8x10. Also guessing if you scanned 8x10 film at much higher resolution and then resized it to match the IQ180 the 8x10 might have looked better (which is the workflow one uses with 8x10) (OK, I'll admit I didn't really delve in the fine detail of the article, maybe there's a good explanation and I missed it)

As I mentioned over on LuLa, my skepticism comes from extremely close examination of Rodney Lough's work which is pretty amazing and certainly appears to be on par or at least much closer than what I'm seeing in the comparisons.

Of course, the real test is print vs print .. as usual on line pixel peeping rarely gives us a good insight as to what things will look like on paper. So despite what appears to be a substantial advantage of the IQ180, printing a very large print most likely won't reveal nearly as large of difference.

That being said, I left film in 2001 and have never been happier. Shooting digital rekindled my passion for landscape work (especially since that 1st 16mp digital back Kodak made which is where I started with MF), and like Guy, I'm appreciative of the fact that I lived during the transition ... having a film background certainly gives one a nice perspective on digital ...

what a great time to be alive ...:)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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.

I'm actually sitting here going through thousands of images for a presentation and reliving almost every shoot. Kind of enjoying the nostalgia.

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.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
Guy, to be fair, maybe more like vinyl albums, not 8-track (wonder how many even know what an 8 track is.

my guess is the biggest loose variable for 8x10 is holding the film flat; even if it is not flat, some portion of the image ought to be in focus, unless it is closer than the focal length (beyond Infinity, Buz!)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
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
 

JimCollum

Member
still have one, still shoot with one :) .. although it's an age old Rajah 8x10 wood field

although the glass i shoot with isn't being used for it's resolution... in fact, i'd say it's anti-resolution :)

fp4 & trix in rodinal

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.

I'm actually sitting here going through thousands of images for a presentation and reliving almost every shoot. Kind of enjoying the nostalgia.

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.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Has anybody compared a analog print of film (vs a scan) to a print from digital?

I sometimes read the LFI magazine and allways try to guess if images are film or digital. Have to say that 90% of the film images have a look that I like. DOnt know if its color and tones or the grain.

Just looks good to me.

Comparing large format film to digital - resolution -mmhhh - if digital has more resolution I wonder if anybody would miss any resolution i a print from large format film?
 
Top