Scanned Pyro MF neg printed via Piezography vs Fuji GFX 50/100 monochrome sensor?

[Alex.T]

I'm not sure how common or uncommon this workflow is but please share your experience in shooting pyro developed negatives that are then scanned and printed via Piezography vs Piezography prints made with a Fuji GFX camera or similar medium format camera. I used to shoot large format and develop Pyro style but that was a long time ago and now I shoot with a Fuji GFX 50r and make (what I consider) stunning Piezography prints but I am curious if a properly scanned medium format negative developed in Pyro could outshine or perhaps give more tonal control and definition compared to a GFX file.

If I go the film route one possible camera consideration is the Fuji GX680. I've read conflicted reports when comparing a medium format negative to a pristine Fuji GFX file. People mention that a traditional flatbed scanner is not sufficient in terms of resolution compared digital photo and even then having a drum scan might not compare, is this true?

The other alternative is upgrading to a GFX 100 and having the sensor converted to monochrome, I have seen some of these files and they are impressive but would an ultra sharp medium format negative developed in pyro (more work I know!) outshine a monochrome sensor?

There is also the Arca -Swiss F-Universalis camera where a medium format monorail bellow system is utilized with a GFX camera body on the back.

I know this is a lot in one post but I would like to hear from you and what your thoughts are.

 

[koraks]

Welcome aboard @Alex.T!

Honestly, I don't think the film-based approach has any inherent advantage over the approach where you start with a digital recording. In terms of workflow and flexibility, the digital route is more effective. Starting on film can be worth it if you value the experience and if there are certain philosophical/metaphysical arguments for it that swing the balance that way for you. Rationally/objectively speaking, I don't think it's possible to make a very solid case for it.

People mention that a traditional flatbed scanner is not sufficient in terms of resolution compared digital photo and even then having a drum scan might not compare, is this true?

Scanned film yields a different kind of data than a digital sensor capture. I find it hard to qualify this in objective terms, i.e. which is 'better'. They're different. Having said that, flatbed scans are indeed in my experience sub-optimal, although they do diffuse grain away a little bit, which can be an advantage in some cases. However, detail rendering is generally poorer than when making a proper film scan (Nikon LS series etc.) Drum scans can be excellent, but are also labor intensive and thus expensive. Whether they're worth it is again a subjective question.

upgrading to a GFX 100 and having the sensor converted to monochrome

I do not see a significant advantage to physically convert the camera; I'd just use it to acquire color images and then convert those to monochrome.

would an ultra sharp medium format negative developed in pyro (more work I know!) outshine a monochrome sensor?

Objectively speaking, no. Subjectively speaking, you may find that the workflow ends up yielding somewhat different results and you may prefer either option based on what you see. I'm afraid the only way to find out is to give it a try.

You could divide the possible workflows in a couple of groups:
* Record digitally, then inkjet print
* Record digitally, output to a chemical media (silver halide or something else)
* Record on film, inkjet print
* Record on film, print optically (enlargement etc.)
It's generally virtually impossible to obtain the exact same print with any two of these routes, although it's possible to get really, really close. Where they differ for sure is the direction that the process leads you in; if you let go of the idea of working towards a narrowly defined end goal, and instead allow the medium to guide your creative decisions, you'll find out that each option results in a rather different kind of printed image. This, I think, should be the primary criterion - does one particular workflow somehow, almost magically, guide you towards the kind of print you're happy with? There's of course only one way to find out.

Additionally, as I mentioned above, there can be intangible aspects to the choice between capturing on film vs. digital and even if those may seem 'irrational', they're important nonetheless. Very simply put, if there's something you like about film, then what stands in the way of using it? I'd challenge you to try and work out what it is in the film-based approach that appeals to you; see if you can make it concrete and then turn that to your advantage.

If it's a purely objective, rational choice, then IMO it's a very easy one - a modern digital sensor like in the cameras you mention yield impeccably clean, high-quality images under virtually all circumstances and with relative ease of use (and low overall weight!), and you'll be very, very hard-pressed to approximate, let alone exceed the same objective result in terms of resolving power etc. on film. If that's what this is about, then you'd have to record on as large a format as you can muster (preferably 4x5" instead of medium format), on a high-tech film like Kodak Tmax 100 - but you will also have to accept the inherent limitations that this approach will bring. Included in those limitations are film speed, bulk & weight, being bound to a tripod most/all of the time and other practical issues that can have a very real and significant impact on the kind of image you can (or cannot) make in the first place.