Interest in LF, has digital really changed it at all?

[vet173]

For me it was the darkroom experience that led to large format. I looked at my 35mm next to a 4x5 and was hooked. Now I want everything Galli has. Next on the list is a verito for the 8x10.

 

[laz]

I want everything Galli has. .

Now that belongs on a tee-shirt! (or at the very least must be my signature!)
Bob

 

[Soeren]

If we leave out what I think is the grey area of 4x5 has digital or anything else really negitivly impacted its "popularity"?

I think LF is so unlike anything else in it's appeal that what draws us to it hasn't changed one whit. Does anybody really think that someone considering LF would look at the decrease in the variety of film and paper or the production of LF cameras and say "nah, not for me" because of it?

LF is a whole other ball game.

-Bob

No the decrease in film and paper variety does not affect my coming choices in photography, be it in MF and 35mm or a coming upgrade to LF. The darkroom issues does however keep me from jumping right into it despite I reall want to. I have been very close to bying a LF camera through APUG twice but I'm really in two minds about it. The total control over the image, the camera movements, the slow proces and the neg size is what I find intrigueing. those things equals quality to me in an odd way and it will make the images stand out from those I see in my cameraclub, magazines and those I do today.
I find the differences in workflow between MF and 35mm on one side and LF on the other to have a lot more influence on my choises than the maybees considering product availability.
Regards Søren

 

[Struan Gray]

Any reserve I have is of the stiff upper lipped British sort. I am an economic migrant into the socialist paradise that is modern Sweden.

Talking of which, here are a couple of examples of the sort of thing that for me makes LF worth the hassle: Dead Link Removed. Taken on a rainly afternoon with the wife away and the fag end of a box of PN55 to get rid of. Two active four-year-olds stunned into behaving by the sight of a big black Verito pointing straight at them. I lost track of the number of times I had to stop Magnus prematurely squeezing the cable release, or how futile it was to expect him to even approximate stillness for half a second. Emily held still, and then wanted to just watch her brother on the ground glass for, oh, an hour or so.

Printed at 12x15 or so these have a presence that would be hard to acheive with smaller formats. The blur looks good, partly because it is not accompanied by grain, but mostly because some small parts of the image are intensely sharp. The prints are not going to win any camera club competitions, but for me at least, so much the better.

 

[laz]

Beautiful children Struan, beautiful. I forgot what we were talking about, which is a good thing!

Thanks for sharing those photos, my day has begun with beauty, just the way I like it.

-Bob

 

[ddolde]

I am using 4x5 because I get more resolution than even with 16mp digital. Since I scan to a digital file anyway film is more of a means to and end than anything else.

The process of shooting 4x5 to me is much more satisfying than using a digital camera. I like composing on the ground glass, using tilt and shift, and figuring out my own exposures without some damned automated computer doing it.

Now as far as the post processing goes, ie scanning, that is a real pain compared to just downloading a digital file from the camera.

I had a conversation recently with Joseph Holmes whose stunning 4x5 work I greatly admire. What's he up to these days? Canon 5D with TS-E lenses and flat stitching to get 4x5 resolution. A lot lighter kit to hike with to boot. My 4x5 kit weights 26 lbs plus Gitzo.

Maybe I am just clinging to old technology. I wonder if glass plate shooters resisted the move to film when it arrived on the scene.

 

[roteague]

I am using 4x5 because I get more resolution than even with 16mp digital.

I get more resolution out of my 35mm Nikon than a 16pm digital camera (assuming Fuji Velvia). That is one of the dirtly little secrets of the digital crowd - if you tell someone often enough that digital is MF quality, then you will get people believing it.

 

[ddolde]

To say that 35mm film exceeds 16mp digital is contrary to what most everyone else says. Most say it's somewhere between 645 and 6x7 in terms of resolution.

Now I agree you might get a bigger scanned file...but bigger is not better in this realm. Can you elaborate on your claim?

 

[roteague]

To say that 35mm film exceeds 16mp digital is contrary to what most everyone else says. Most say it's somewhere between 645 and 6x7 in terms of resolution.

Fuji Velvia 50 resolves to 160 lpm. 160 x 24 x 1 60 x 36 = 22118400 (about 22MP). See: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm

 

[ddolde]

That is theory and quite meaningless. Your lenses won't resolve 160 lines/mm.

 

[roteague]

Your lenses won't resolve 160 lines/mm.

Neither will the Cannon lenses.

 

[sanking]

To say that 35mm film exceeds 16mp digital is contrary to what most everyone else says. Most say it's somewhere between 645 and 6x7 in terms of resolution.

Now I agree you might get a bigger scanned file...but bigger is not better in this realm. Can you elaborate on your claim?

You missed most of it. Scan 35mm film with the best scanning gear and see what you get. It immediately becomes *digital* and is very much superior *in terms of resolution* to anything you can get with a a 12-16mp digital camera.

So yes, 35mm film does exceed 16mp in terms of resolution. Just try it yourself with an Air Force resolution chart and see what you get. What "most" say is mostly BS.

Sandy

 

[chiller]

You missed most of it. Scan 35mm film with the best scanning gear and see what you get. It immediately becomes *digital* and is very much superior *in terms of resolution* to anything you can get with a a 12-16mp digital camera.

So yes, 35mm film does exceed 16mp in terms of resolution. Just try it yourself with an Air Force resolution chart and see what you get. What "most" say is mostly BS.

Sandy

Finally -- and if I may add resolution is only one part of the aethetics of a photograph. Differential focus -- beautiful delicate out of focus - transmission of tone gradation. Film offers all of these subtle characterists -- and please don't tell me you can produce those with PS or the GIMP.

Digital has a place but not on this forum APUG.

What a falsehood to compare digital in all it's flatness to the life and brilliance of Velvia.

 

[roteague]

You missed most of it. Scan 35mm film with the best scanning gear and see what you get. It immediately becomes *digital* and is very much superior *in terms of resolution* to anything you can get with a a 12-16mp digital camera.

Additionally, even the best 16mp camera resolves less than most good lenses (Ds MkII is about 75lpm), while Velvia resolves more.

And, as is mentioned in the next post, there is much more to an image than just sharpness; color depth and tonality - both of which digital can't match.

 

[laz]

There is a new law of physics: It's called the APUG law and states: Given enough time all threads will dissolve into an argument about digital vs. analog.

Here's the equation: An+Di*T=A

Of couse this always has the chance of going nuclear.

-Bob

 

[Soeren]

There is a new law of physics: It's called the APUG law and states: Given enough time all threads will dissolve into an argument about digital vs. analog.

Here's the equation: An+Di*T=A

Of couse this always has the chance of going nuclear.

-Bob

I read about that theory once. there was something about a catalyst.
I don't remember exactly, do you.

 

[laz]

I read about that theory once. there was something about a catalyst.
I don't remember exactly, do you.

Actually now that I look at it I realize that T can = either Time or Troll!

We'll need a collider to test it; any trolls around?

 

[sanking]

Bob,

You are absolutley right.

But I think that there should be a place on apug.org where we can deal with the real issues of digital versus analog. Film still has many advantages over digital capture and that point needs to be made. The discussion here shows how misinformed some people are about the comparison. A 35mm negative, if scanned with a high resolution scanner and converted to a digital file, will have an enormous advantage, at some magnification factor, over digital cameras in the 16-20 megapixel range.

Now, if the issue is merely evaluting quality at some finite size, say 11X14 or 16X20, the 16 megapixel camera may appear to give results of greater apparent sharpness than prints made by wet processing form 35mm negatives. But this is misleading because the digital prints will almost certainly have some sharpening applied, and if you were to do a valid test for real *resolution* a good 35mm camera will win hands down. No mystery to it, just plain optical reality.

And of course, if you scan the 35mm negative with a very high resolution and convert it to a digital file, you have the best of both worlds. And cost wise, a very high level scanner, say one that will scan in the 4000-8000 dpi range, is much less expensive than a 16-20 megapixel digital camera.

Sandy

There is a new law of physics: It's called the APUG law and states: Given enough time all threads will dissolve into an argument about digital vs. analog.

Here's the equation: An+Di*T=A

Of couse this always has the chance of going nuclear.

-Bob

 

[laz]

But I think that there should be a place on apug.org where we can deal with the real issues of digital versus analog. Film still has many advantages over digital capture and that point needs to be made. The discussion here shows how misinformed some people are about the comparison.

Yes Sandy I very much agree. But while I think you and I could have a reasonable discussion on the merits of both (Oh my did he say both have merit! ) I find it exasperating that it's such a emotional issue to so many that the mere mention of the D word can cause apoplexy.

So yes, a place where reasonable people can discuss the advantages of film would be great, I just think it would have to be closely moderated. I like APUG for what it is and don't know why we have to bash digital to enjoy analog!

-Bob

 

[ddolde]

You missed most of it. Scan 35mm film with the best scanning gear and see what you get. It immediately becomes *digital* and is very much superior *in terms of resolution* to anything you can get with a a 12-16mp digital camera.

Sandy

Flat out bullshit.