Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 79 of 79

Thread: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    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.

  2. #52
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    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
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  3. #53
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    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.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  4. #54
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    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
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  5. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
    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

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    484
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    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.

  7. #57
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    I'm with Stefan, I do not miss any part of the wet workflow, even the totally dry capture part!
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  8. #58
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    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

  9. #59
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    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
    Last edited by Bob; 27th December 2011 at 15:06.

  10. #60
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    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.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  11. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    111
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    The only thing I sort of miss about film is burning and dodging. Of couse, I can do a much more precise job of it in Photoshop, but I liked the tactile sensation of making shadows and highlights with my hands.

    For me, digital has the same appeal as woodworking with power tools. Some people like the hand-hewn look and feel of handmade furniture. Some woodworkers like the experience of working with hand tools and the more organic results they produce. I prefer the precision of power tools. Digital photography gives me that sort of precision in my photography.

    Of course, making furniture by hand doesn't necessarily guarantee an attractive finished piece, just as shooting with film doesn't produce a more pleasing composition. A successful photo needs an interesting subject, and attractive composition and a technically sound result. The choice of medium (film or digital) only potentially affects the technical soundness of the result, and success with either medium ultimately depends on your mastery of the medium and not the medium itself.

    Just my opinion - yours may be different.

  12. #62
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    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.

    Tim
    That's it in a nutshell.
    But it's important to keep in mind that digital is often touted to be more than it is.... it's not the only game in town
    Last edited by FredBGG; 27th December 2011 at 17:45.

  13. #63
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig Stocks View Post
    For me, digital has the same appeal as woodworking with power tools. Some people like the hand-hewn look and feel of handmade furniture. Some woodworkers like the experience of working with hand tools and the more organic results they produce. I prefer the precision of power tools. Digital photography gives me that sort of precision in my photography.


    From a MF digital perspective the same applies also to tech camera vs MF DSLR too. I hated shooting 35mm (well, maybe with the exception of my xpan), liked shooting 6x7 and thoroughly enjoyed the process of shooting 4x5 but only seldom miss those experiences. Scanning and spotting film I don't miss at all and I never did go through the process & hand print phase.

    I generally find that when you look back on the "good old days" they really weren't that good at all. Rose tinted specs are a wonderful thing but I think that there's a lot of realism here about the 'joys' of film. However, I do completely understand and respect why some people enjoy shooting, processing and printing as part of a tactile analogue experience.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  14. #64
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig Stocks View Post

    For me, digital has the same appeal as woodworking with power tools. Some people like the hand-hewn look and feel of handmade furniture. Some woodworkers like the experience of working with hand tools and the more organic results they produce. I prefer the precision of power tools.
    A perfect analogy Craig. There are clearly benefits and reasons to use both/either. As Graham said,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  15. #65
    Senior Member Stefan Steib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lindenberg im Allgäu
    Posts
    1,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    JLM

    Oh yes I remember the darkroom..... actually this was the reason I started photography ! I was pretty good with film sheets interleaving , did 20pcs 5x7" at the same time/one run without ruining any. But......
    Once you left the darkroom your nice brown fingers showed everybody your are either a very heavy smoker - or A PHOTOGRAPHER......

    and- some other thought: if the advantages of Film today only show up on single images worked on for some time and the enlargement needs several thousand DPI´s of scan and it will show only in images larger than maybe 80x100cm this has left the area of professional Photography today. This is for artists and amateurs. A normal Pro (probably 99 %) cannot make a living from this, it´s simply not possible anymore.

    And my final confession on this: When I was still young and got into the reach of this fabulous equipment when I started my career I was so enthusiastic about doing this Ansel Adams /Edward Weston stuff.
    I got myself an 8x10 " Teufel Kondensor enlarger (with BITE!) Nikon EL lenses, a full set of Heliopans from Dark red to yellow/green, Oriental Baryt Papers and all the needed stuff. I worked hard for this doing industry shootings, studio sessions running overnight with catalogue stuff with hundreds sometimes thousands of items, Knitware, sports, shoes, Pharma.
    All the good stuff that was making cash. But you know what happened. When I had a sunday free and could sleep, I had sometimes tried to set up my alarm clock to go off 2.00am so I could drive to the mountains, set up my 8x10 Plaubel with the dark red filter and the TriX and wait for the sunrise.........I never did it.

    I admit I was just too plain tired, stopped the alarm and slept on.
    And this is the reason why my name will never be in a row with Ansel and Edward.......

    Greetings from Munich
    Stefan
    because photography is more than technology - and " as we have done this all the time "
    facebook:hcam.de - www.hcam.de - www.hartblei.de

  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post


    From a MF digital perspective the same applies also to tech camera vs MF DSLR too. I hated shooting 35mm (well, maybe with the exception of my xpan), liked shooting 6x7 and thoroughly enjoyed the process of shooting 4x5 but only seldom miss those experiences. Scanning and spotting film I don't miss at all and I never did go through the process & hand print phase.

    I generally find that when you look back on the "good old days" they really weren't that good at all. Rose tinted specs are a wonderful thing but I think that there's a lot of realism here about the 'joys' of film. However, I do completely understand and respect why some people enjoy shooting, processing and printing as part of a tactile analogue experience.
    Yeah, it's easy to get all misty eyed and nostalgic for the total analog process ... which has to include the wet dark-room prints for the full effect. The results were and are quite something to see especially from 6X7 on upwards. Yet, we forget the sometimes agonizing steps to that one precious print that could go belly up at almost any step along the way ... heck, I remember getting all the way to the dry mount flattening stage and putting a dimple in the print from a spot of gunk on the platen left by the last user ... then starting all over.

    Much respect to those with the skill, patience and perseverance to keep film alive, it should be there to offer an alternative view of the world for others to enjoy.

    I also admit to seeing many images at shows by Leica M shooters done in film, and marveling at the look and feel that I've yet to see from any digital camera including the M9. But I get over it pretty fast ...

    -Marc

  17. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    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.
    A couple of recent shots whilst working for that national park commission.

    This one is two 4x5's side by side, flat stitched.. Portra 160



    This one's a Mamiya 7 shot on Portra 400



    A Canon A1 shot on Portra 400



    And a single 4x5 on Portra 400



    Most of these were developed and scanned and uploaded on the same day or the next morning.

    Really enjoyed the thread - some interesting things said and very little trollage! thanks!

    Tim

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    I think the best way to shoot 8x10 is to use it in addition to other cameras.
    Yes, that's how it works for me too. I'd have trouble getting by with just a big view camera - if I could have only one camera, it would be a film M-Leica. But I'm really happy to have view cameras available for when I'm in the mood. And although my results aren't yet satisfying, I'm glad to have digital cameras available to play with too.

  19. #69
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    I shut down my color darkroom of ten years at the end of last year--I had a darkroom of one kind or another since I was 13. When i was in Japan it was as easy as going downtown to pickup chemistry. Here, the same stuff is hazmat and the extra cost of shipping on top of the quantities they require you order make it uneconomical. Disposal was also a problem.

    I miss the qualities of the process. The "look" of the prints. It was not better than what I do know, just different.

    However, the digital workflow is also amazing. There are things I can do in color that would be either very hard or impossible in the darkroom. It also allows some controls that were lost when processes like dye transfer were no longer produced. And so this transition has been a fun transition for me. I still am working on how the process sees--I could see and understand how things would be translated with film, and I need to figure that out with my new gear/process.

    I loved large format, but it was just impractical for the way I work and the places I go. Medium format was the bast compromise--my bag held a 6x6 rangefinder and a 6x12 viewfinder camera. Both easy to handhold and to travel with--I was not carrying a 4x5 up 9,000ft mountains for 20 days or travel across the Tibetan plateau on a cramped bus with a 4x5, holder, and boxes of film---although I know quite a few "crazy" people who do.

    The darkroom is not the place for everyone. Some like to build furniture from stock wood and other find Ikea kits fine. But I see photography as a process, whether film or digital. You use that process for its strengths--I never understood adding grain and a full-frame border to a digital image. While my personal work is narrow, I love the variety in photography and hope that many of the processes will continue for a very long time. We always lose a little something when a process dies regardless of our own way of working.

  20. #70
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Stefan Steib View Post
    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
    Stefan, I wish I could be as poetic in my own language as you are in one which is not even your mother tounge!

    Thanks Tim and Jack, I was musing about the fact that you might be able to scan at a level of quality which would be both incredible and relatively easy and cheap to achieve using the Epson scanner, if you were to use 8X10" film. I was musing about it but I think it will remain just musing. I did a shot last night, 44 megapixel stitch and razor sharp and the finished file took me all of about an hour sitting at the computer in my towelling robe while the shower heated up 7:30 this morning If you click on the link and read the blurb about the pic, it would have been impossible to take on LF film anyway. I do enjoy the nostalgia for film without actually wanting to do anything about it, until they resurrect Type 55 at least, the laziness of that georgous film (I used to wash in plain water) could have just been perfectly designed for me!
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  21. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    Stefan, I wish I could be as poetic in my own language as you are in one which is not even your mother tounge!

    Thanks Tim and Jack, I was musing about the fact that you might be able to scan at a level of quality which would be both incredible and relatively easy and cheap to achieve using the Epson scanner, if you were to use 8X10" film. I was musing about it but I think it will remain just musing. I did a shot last night, 44 megapixel stitch and razor sharp and the finished file took me all of about an hour sitting at the computer in my towelling robe while the shower heated up 7:30 this morning If you click on the link and read the blurb about the pic, it would have been impossible to take on LF film anyway. I do enjoy the nostalgia for film without actually wanting to do anything about it, until they resurrect Type 55 at least, the laziness of that georgous film (I used to wash in plain water) could have just been perfectly designed for me!
    You could have shot it using one of these..



    using Portra 400 rated at 800? You could also wait around a bit and try out some of this http://new55project.blogspot.com/ when it finally comes out?

    Tim

  22. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Portra 400.. Somebody was asking about thedynamic range of this film so I thought I'd post a shot of a Lake District scene I took especially to see how I could 'stress test' the film ..


    http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static...amic-range.jpg

    It was metered for the -4ev shadows placed at -3 stops. this put the general sky area which was ev11-13 at +6stops and the clouds near the sun at +10 stops.

    Tim

  23. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    No matter now you look at it, the latitude of colour neg film is pretty amazing. With proper technique extreme highlights roll off beautifully and deep shadows are rich with detail. I've never had a fondness of the highlight rolloff of single shot digital files, although I've seen plenty of other peoples photographs that prove it can be just as good, if not aesthetically different.

  24. #74
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Manchester/Jerusalem
    Posts
    2,652
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    290

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by timparkin View Post
    You could have shot it using one of these..



    using Portra 400 rated at 800? You could also wait around a bit and try out some of this http://new55project.blogspot.com/ when it finally comes out?

    Tim
    The main problem was the 25 second shutter speed at f22 in that particular image. I could hav used swing on a LF camera to keep the shutter speed down but it was a nightmare as it was getting low enough to look through the viewfinder (was at waist height) to focus when there was a constant milling around of large tour groups in an alley/stairway about 3.5 metres wide! Trying to do it with a LF camera to get accurate movements and focus in street light with that much of a crowd, to be honest I almost gave up trying to do it with a DSLR nevermind an 8X10

    I did start this project using a 6X12 back on LF cameras (Tachi/Gandolfi/MPP/Cambo) but due to the 3D nature of most of the locations (couldn't use movements for DOF) and the fact I was insisting on using a 'normal' focal length (135mm) rather than a wide, I was having to stop down heavily to the point where it was impossible to freeze foliage or indeed people movement and I was losing a huge amount of sharpness to diffraction. Stitching and digital does give me the ability to stop down less, use higher iso's (I've shot parts of that project at iso 1600, not that you'd be able to tell when there is 35-70 megapixels worth of image) and get very pain free, camera to finished image, results. It didn't take me long to realise that the LF idea was just too much work for the questionable benefits for my specific needs.

    But I've been following the New55 project for a while now
    I am not a painter, nor an artist. Therefore I can see straight, and that may be my undoing. - Alfred Stieglitz

    Website: http://www.timelessjewishart.com

  25. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein View Post
    titching and digital does give me the ability to stop down less, use higher iso's (I've shot parts of that project at iso 1600, not that you'd be able to tell when there is 35-70 megapixels worth of image) and get very pain free, camera to finished image, results. It didn't take me long to realise that the LF idea was just too much work for the questionable benefits for my specific needs.
    Ah yes - smaller formats definitely then! I only take my suffering so far :-)

    Tim

  26. #76
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    No matter now you look at it, the latitude of colour neg film is pretty amazing. With proper technique extreme highlights roll off beautifully and deep shadows are rich with detail. I've never had a fondness of the highlight rolloff of single shot digital files, although I've seen plenty of other peoples photographs that prove it can be just as good, if not aesthetically different.
    Ah, well that is the old problem with the differences in technologies. Film, with its s-shaped response curve is emulated in digital in post processing. Digital sensors have essentially a linear curve with a "response curve adjustment" applied in post. This is one reason why the measurements of dynamic range for color film seems so short compared to the dynamic range for most digital. In photometry we used to exclude most of the tail and shoulder of the response curve. Because of the soft roll-off in sensitivity, especially with some of the B&W emulsions, it created an apparent level of detail although compressed in tonal range in both shoulder and toe. The digital away around this is to seek ever more dynamic range so that this effect may be emulated.
    -bob

  27. #77
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Ah, well that is the old problem with the differences in technologies. Film, with its s-shaped response curve is emulated in digital in post processing. Digital sensors have essentially a linear curve with a "response curve adjustment" applied in post. This is one reason why the measurements of dynamic range for color film seems so short compared to the dynamic range for most digital. In photometry we used to exclude most of the tail and shoulder of the response curve. Because of the soft roll-off in sensitivity, especially with some of the B&W emulsions, it created an apparent level of detail although compressed in tonal range in both shoulder and toe. The digital away around this is to seek ever more dynamic range so that this effect may be emulated.
    -bob
    I always wondered why the dynamic range figures were so conservative. Using the DxO mark style definition of dynamic range (differentiating tones from each other) Portra 400 ended up with 19 stops according to my testing. Most of this was in the shoulder region. One of the nice things about scanning and photoshop is that you can then expand these toes and shoulders to create a more linear response, albeit losing some tonal separation and increasing the grain/noise.

    Tim

  28. #78
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    so we have gotten so used to the s curve from film that we tweak the digital linear curve to match? I do this on occasion to give what seems a better image, but maybe our paradigm is skewed to begin with?

  29. #79
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    so we have gotten so used to the s curve from film that we tweak the digital linear curve to match? I do this on occasion to give what seems a better image, but maybe our paradigm is skewed to begin with?
    I am not sure that we have gotten used to the curve as much as we "see" the central part of the curve (the straight line bit) as the major image-impression contrast component of the image, but only when we look closely at the deep shadows and highlights do we really see the details in those areas.
    I think this says more about the way that the eye can accommodate for the brightness range of our field of view.
    We know from tests done years ago that images that had shoulders and toes clipped off looked perfectly normal to folks viewing the image at a distance of about 3 times the diagonal measurement assuming that the straight line component was full of detail.
    A linear response over the extended dynamic range of a digital sensor looks flat so it needs the curve to restore some of the mid-tone contrast we see in "real life"
    -bob

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •