Workflow Problem: 80mp vs 4x5 vs 120 film

[ocarlo]

greetings all,
I joined the group in 2009, kept my head down but have gained much knowledge + I found my P45 with Live View here.
so Thank you esp. Admins.
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...0-intro-newbie-staggers.html?highlight=ocarlo
2016 - and I'm only halfway through my projects. They just seem to keep on breeding.
I have a $$ and workflow decision to make soon, and could use some input/feedback.
RZ Pro IID, P45, 4 Elinchrom Rangers, 2 Profoto AcuteBs. All manual, 50 asa, handheld metering. That's as technical as I care to go.

I stage scenes to photograph, in war zones in central Africa. It's not photojournalism, unless I'm staging fake ones.
I'm not dodging bullets (so far), have some control over the situation, and for the coming shoots, will have 3 months
and the time to do one image a day.
Problem: need more bigger pixels. Low budget and huge production costs, including a small film crew alongside..I have to get real, and unsentimental quick.
View attachment 120299

1) 80mp back - good deals out there under 15,000. Trade my used P45 towards used IQ180 back. Chris Snipes at CI- am chewing on it.
2) stick with my P45 as a glorified preview machine, and shoot 120 film backs off my RZ - As from the uploaded samples, I shoot vertical with overlaps for each person, then stitch in Pshop. If I shoot film, that's 2 or 3 rolls (x2 if I bracket once) for each image, to be drum-scanned and then the laborious stitching.
Anyone doing this - shooting film and stitching?, and can give me a sense of how much $$ and labor to pro scan 12-24 frames, for a single image?
I'm looking at about 60 final images over 3 months of work - yikes - though something tells me it'll still be cheaper than buying a used back...
3) 4x5 - I do have a Deardorff, but in my dusty, very public and very armed environment - too labor intensive.
Unless I flew in an assistant. Then I might as well go 80mp back.
This might let me shoot and stitch 2 or 3 horizontal frames only vs. 24 for one image - but then again, with vertical frames, I'm able to light each person individually from off-screen. Every option has pluses and minuses.

Just wondered: Does Phase One in Denmark or Leaf have a loan or short-term lease program for not-famous certified artists?
Creative Capital - Investing in Artists who Shape the Future
Any recommendations for a tripod/head/nodal point thingie for a heavy RZ ProIID?
If my limit is a used IQ180 or Leaf Aptus-12 only, are they at least better at quick focus checking than the P45?

Why more pixels? I'm aiming for 3 or 4ft by 12ft, or 24ft or longer. Test strips of P45 files so far at pro printer don't pop.
I'd also like the option of cropping into frames from different images, and recombining...
Always, it boils down to money. I can always adapt, and change the entire plan...nothing sacred here..Guess I'm just thinking out loud, wanting to share my process, and continue my due diligence. Thanks for any input or advice.View attachment 120300

 

[med]

Why more pixels? I'm aiming for 3 or 4ft by 12ft, or 24ft or longer. Test strips of P45 files so far at pro printer don't pop.
I'd also like the option of cropping into frames from different images, and recombining...

For clarity's sake, were your test strips from P45 files stitches or single frames? If the latter, I'm thinking that stitching with the P45 may be a viable alternative to the RZ stitch scenario. Where I am, a high res pro scan of a 120 neg runs about $50-$60 or so.

 

[jerome_m]

I am not sure I quite understand what you want to do, but I can offer some answers about stitching.

First: the difference between your P45 and the 80mpix back is not that huge: you will only be able to print twice as big. Will that be enough?
Second: color 120 film will have slightly lower detail than your P45. 4"x5" will be better, but not that much. Probably stitching will be the only solution.

Now about stitching. Manfrotto has a good panorama head, the MH057A5 (and MH057A5-LONG). It is sturdy enough to support a MF camera, although I am not sure that the RZ would fit. I use it with an Hasselblad camera. Hasselblad publishes the position of the entry pupil for all their lenses, that is a great help.

The question, however, is whether your subject are adapted to stitching? It is not very practical to use stitching with people as a subject.

 

[steve_cor]

Carlo,

We're confused about your process.:facesmack: How do you make the outdoors / background look continuous? Do you have all the people arranged / spread out in one large outdoor area? Then you move the camera and lights so you can light each person individually. Then stitch all the pictures together to make it look like all the people were shot in one big picture at the same time.

So now you want to shoot and stitch 2 or 3 horizontal frames only for one image. But then you wouldn't be able to light each person individually.

 

[torger]

As other have said an increase from 39 to 80 megapixels is not that large, 7216x5412 vs 10328x7760, that is on one side there's only 43% more pixels.

In other words if you print 4 feet with wide panorama with the 39 you only get 5.7 feet wide with the 80 for the same ppi print. To get a significant difference for your panos you need to stitch, and if you stitch maybe you can stick with your P45+.

But yes, focus check actually works on those 80MP backs you mention, unlike on the P45+ if that's an important feature to you.

I guess the advantage with 120 film is that you can do a 6x17 pano in one shot, if you already have the camera. On a 4x5" camera you only fit 6x12 though. How does a scanned 6x17 shot compare to a cropped 80MP shot? 170mm long edge is 6.7 inch, so an 80MP back would yield resolution corresponding to a 1540 ppi scan. It will be a matter of debate if the film or digital will have better quality. Objectively you will be able to extract more detail from the 6x17 with a high end drum scan at say 4000ppi, but you'll get more grain so the 80MP print may look more clean.

Personally I think film with its grain can have an advantage when oversizing prints, the grain structure look more organic, while the digital can look a bit plastic.

The panos you mention look however so extremely wide so I guess you'd want to stitch anyway and then digital stitching seems much more practical than messing with film.

 

[synn]

I am not sure if I understand your creative vision completely, but why not shoot the people in the studio and the backgrounds separately and then composite them in post?

This means that you can light the people as you want and shoot vertical, then use a variety of available landscape shooting and stitching techniques to create the extremely wide backdrop you want and then composite the people as you see fit.

You could even shoot the people with the P45 and the landscapes with a 6x17 film camera. Provided your pre-vis and post production skills are up to scratch, matching the two should not be a monumental task.

Since you are not doing photojournalism and thus, not limited to accurate portrayals, I think this might be a vialble solution.

 

[DougDolde]

Film is dead, give it up.

 

[voidshatter]

Film is dead, give it up.

In a couple of years, the same can be said for CCD. (And this had happened for myself two years ago for my specific use cases.)

 

[stephengilbert]

Anyone up for a poll on the stupidest post of the year?

 

[ocarlo]

For clarity's sake, were your test strips from P45 files stitches or single frames? If the latter, I'm thinking that stitching with the P45 may be a viable alternative to the RZ stitch scenario. Where I am, a high res pro scan of a 120 neg runs about $50-$60 or so.

Thanks for the reply. I refer to the long image above. I had several strips from the final stitched Photoshop file.
wow. $50 huh. x say 25 frames per final image = $1, 250. not good.

 

[ocarlo]

I am not sure I quite understand what you want to do, but I can offer some answers about stitching.

Now about stitching. Manfrotto has a good panorama head, the MH057A5 (and MH057A5-LONG). It is sturdy enough to support a MF camera, although I am not sure that the RZ would fit. I use it with an Hasselblad camera. Hasselblad publishes the position of the entry pupil for all their lenses, that is a great help.

The question, however, is whether your subject are adapted to stitching? It is not very practical to use stitching with people as a subject.

Thanks. I'll look into the head - but sounds like my RZ with add-ons will be quite heavier than a Hassy.
Stitching - I understand the issues with people, and am careful. But I like the control over a single person than a group. The landscape is just a backdrop. At the last minute, I still have the option of cutting up the frames and taping them together for a crude effect.

 

[ocarlo]

Carlo,

We're confused about your process.:facesmack: How do you make the outdoors / background look continuous? Do you have all the people arranged / spread out in one large outdoor area? Then you move the camera and lights so you can light each person individually. Then stitch all the pictures together to make it look like all the people were shot in one big picture at the same time.

So now you want to shoot and stitch 2 or 3 horizontal frames only for one image. But then you wouldn't be able to light each person individually.

Steve,
All the stitching info I could find was for landscape. So I improvised, making sure that, worst case, I could present the final images
as groups of 3-4 people only, or crudely tape 3-4 groupings and make a virtue of it.
I find a central position for looking left to right, and plant my tripod.
I frame vertically, make two passes of about 24 frames each, with different focus planes. My backup for layering in later, should I need it. Specially since I had to guess at nodal point stuff. Going left to right with each shot, I shoot people individually - with a spot on boom from offscreen - and with overlaps to the next person up..and so on. The one above took about 5 hours.
With what now appears to be a crazy bill just for pro scans, I'll have to rethink individual shots with film. I can maybe still do lighting 2 or 3 people individually with spots from offscreen. Just making **** up as I go along.

 

[ocarlo]

As other have said an increase from 39 to 80 megapixels is not that large, 7216x5412 vs 10328x7760, that is on one side there's only 43% more pixels.

In other words if you print 4 feet with wide panorama with the 39 you only get 5.7 feet wide with the 80 for the same ppi print. To get a significant difference for your panos you need to stitch, and if you stitch maybe you can stick with your P45+.

But yes, focus check actually works on those 80MP backs you mention, unlike on the P45+ if that's an important feature to you.

I guess the advantage with 120 film is that you can do a 6x17 pano in one shot, if you already have the camera. On a 4x5" camera you only fit 6x12 though. How does a scanned 6x17 shot compare to a cropped 80MP shot? 170mm long edge is 6.7 inch, so an 80MP back would yield resolution corresponding to a 1540 ppi scan. It will be a matter of debate if the film or digital will have better quality. Objectively you will be able to extract more detail from the 6x17 with a high end drum scan at say 4000ppi, but you'll get more grain so the 80MP print may look more clean.

Personally I think film with its grain can have an advantage when oversizing prints, the grain structure look more organic, while the digital can look a bit plastic.

The panos you mention look however so extremely wide so I guess you'd want to stitch anyway and then digital stitching seems much more practical than messing with film.

Thanks torger for the objective data. What has changed in my thinking: shooting 120 film the same way I'm using my P45 is crazy expensive. Using 6x17 deprives me of lighting control - unless I have 7 assistants with booms. I'd still bring my 4x5 for when I can do two shots to cover the entire pano length, and then I'd only have to drumscan two 4x5 negs. Finally, shoot much shorter panos. Some situations, I will only shoot two people across a 120degree field of view. I don't think panorama or landscape. I think individual portraits, but sharing space.
I should add that the focus thing is definitely huge, from my experience. I've lost quite a bit thinking I'd nailed it, then crying later.
There's also no situation really where I can tether to my laptop.
Also, this pano portrait thing is only one of several series'. I'm also shooting traditional studio beauty shot, and also staged crowd scenes as if I was a journalist with a Dslr. I think I'm talking myself into a 80mp as we speak. cheers

 

[ocarlo]

Synn -

I am not sure if I understand your creative vision completely, but why not shoot the people in the studio and the backgrounds separately and then composite them in post?

This means that you can light the people as you want and shoot vertical, then use a variety of available landscape shooting and stitching techniques to create the extremely wide backdrop you want and then composite the people as you see fit.

You could even shoot the people with the P45 and the landscapes with a 6x17 film camera. Provided your pre-vis and post production skills are up to scratch, matching the two should not be a monumental task.

Since you are not doing photojournalism and thus, not limited to accurate portrayals, I think this might be a vialble solution.

Synn - As you said, accuracy is not a concern at all. Logistics, practicality and safety are. I'm in eastern Congo. 43 armed militias, next door to post-genocide Rwanda, and a freaked-out gov't. Here, studio is a relative term, and its technically illegal to photograph without permit. A "studio" with strobes popping in town is inviting trouble. More important to me, my shoot ideas, and the subjects I want, are often 8 hours drive deep into the bush, over non-roads, in the rainy season. And its easier to get the locals and authorities to permit me to play, if I go farther out. The film I'm making alongside is also about the disruption I create when I plant a "studio" in places where I really shouldn't.
Putting a landscape behind a person shot at 3/4 frame on bluescreen is one thing. Shooting 12 of them, individually lit, and placed at different depths, is another..sides, I'm too lazy for hardcore post-production...btw, as I indicated, I have more standard formats at play in other series' (beauty shots, fashion-y ****, formal group portraits - and some of them are exactly what you described. I just screw around with it more, playing up the artificiality... cheers.

 

[ocarlo]

Anyone up for a poll on the stupidest post of the year?

So - solving a real-world photographic problem that cuts across formats and post-production,
in a photographic forum is "stupid" huh? and making a poll for stupid posts is a totally creative cool use of your time??

Film is dead? please. What is this, a camera club competition for the latest gear?
I don't give a hoot if I have to squeeze raccoon blood on to paper to load into my view camera,
if it works for what I need now. Y'know, real photographer's problems.

No sweat, I'm out - getDPI def not the same.

 

[f8orbust]

GetDPI def not the same.

Sadly, it isn't quite what it once was.

 

[ocarlo]

Sadly, it isn't quite what it once was.

clearly. One doesn't expect to be surprised, and I haven't explored the other fora,
so I have no sense of how widespread. No big loss to pull up stakes, it seems.
cheers

 

[MGrayson]

ocarlo,

I think you are misreading. The claim of "stupid post" was not aimed at you! You are right that this place is not what it once was, and I have had to use the Ignore feature too many times for comfort in recent years, but there are good people here with positive ideas to contribute, and not all are equipment zealots.

I regret that I have no ideas on your photographic problem, but I'm glad to see this discussion.

Best,

Matt

 

[Connor Ray]

Large Format 8x20"
http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/820.html

 

[ocarlo]

Dear all, esp. stephengilbert and MGrayson,
Do I laugh, and/or cry, or just keep on spanking myself?
My sincerest apologies.
A perfect storm:

-- crazy pseudo-3G wifi here just makes tense your default mode. Certainly feels more precious than logging in
from a Starbucks on 6th Ave and 24th St.
-- not normal day stuff, but just before logging in, had a screaming match with a soldier and his AK.
beating up a street kid. Its not Syria, but two large refugee camps are within 5 miles.
And you never do that - unless you're already feeling badass yourself all day.
-- I'm sure you've all felt the adrenaline when lightbulbs switch on in your head, after months of gestating,
and a workflow to make it happen must be sorted out, budgets etc..now!
and you just can't accept waiting for six months, waiting on money - and move!, everyone out of my way,
cos its as clear as day, all of it. At least for me. Four cups of kickass African coffee in two hours helps too.
-- sheer shock. Stuff like that doesn't happen here in getDPI, even just the almost-trolling kind..

More embarrassingly, I'd thought of myself as pretty savvy around online fora, and troll-wise, not my first cha cha.
Anyways, I left more puzzled than angry. I have learned a lot here, and have seen lots of knowledge shared, with congeniality,
enough for me to know that didn't make sense - and maybe I'd got it all wrong. Maybe the sequence of posting?....

I ramble on, cuz I suppose emotion is part of workflow, or should be, at least. To the gents that wrote offline, thank you.
Please accept my apologies, everyone. back to regular programming.
Seriously, not being near a dealer, or a working studio, or not in business enough to actually hold the damn things in your hand -
its amazing how learning new details from you guys have already changed my thinking. So thanks, too.