IQ180/P45/8x10/4x5 camera test

[Craig Stocks]

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.

 

[FredBGG]

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

 

[GrahamWelland]

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.

:thumbs:

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.

 

[Jack]

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, :thumbs:

 

[Stefan Steib]

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

 

[fotografz]

:thumbs:

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 ... :ROTFL:

-Marc

 

[timparkin]

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

 

[Oren Grad]

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.

 

[Shashin]

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.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

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! :ROTFL:

 

[timparkin]

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! :ROTFL:

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

 

[timparkin]

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/tmp/dynamic-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

 

[tjv]

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.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

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

 

[timparkin]

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

 

[Bob]

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

 

[timparkin]

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

 

[jlm]

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?

 

[Bob]

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