Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,322   Posts: 1,536,878   Online: 1094
      
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 63
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by pbromaghin View Post
    Prof_pixel, I'm open to being educated. I would love to know what's wrong with my image of the process. But that probably goes too far into hybrid workflow for this forumn. Is there a good single source I can use to do so?

    http://www.largeformatphotography.in...x10-assessment

    The horse's mouth.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    I have shots showing the two formats quality and the difference is quite distinct, the 10x8 shots are way ahead and that's despite the 5x4 images being shot with a modern 1980's MC 150mm Rodenstock Sironar N lens and the 10x8 with a pre-WWII 12" Dagor (factory coated after WWII). Same tripod.

    Every negative shot with my 10x8 cameras is higher quality than an equivalent made with one of my 5x4's. My normal print size is the same for both 5x4 & 10x8.

    Ian
    What Ian said ^.

    8x10 blows 4x5 out of the water.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    What I'd like to see is a film comparison between a 'well shot' 4x5 and a 'well shot' 8x10 at the same final print size. I suspect the 4x5 would be sharper because of issues like lens quality and film plane sharpness.
    Hardly. Do you have any experience at all with 8x10 and 4x5?

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,353
    Images
    58
    prof-pixel - thank you. It looks like a great thread, mostly from people with large brains. 150 posts!

    This really is good - I've been doing hybrid work flow for a few years. It hasn't been real satisfying and much of it remains a mystery, mainly because after a whole day of twiddling bits I just can't bring myself to do much more of it at home.
    All paths are the same: they lead nowhere. Choose the one that has heart.

    Don Juan

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,020
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Hardly. Do you have any experience at all with 8x10 and 4x5?
    None with 8x10, but I've shot a lot of 4x5 in the past.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    None with 8x10, but I've shot a lot of 4x5 in the past.
    OK. With 8x10, you have four times the area of 4x5. This means that with good technique, four times the information is available. Most LF lenses reach their diffraction limit near f:22 or a bit below, by f:32 any modern lens (and many older lenses) will be diffraction limited. So using a good modern lens at f:16 or so, a good filmholder, a solid camera and tripod, and - very important - good technique will get you 8x10 negatives with an incredible amount of detail. You really have to see a good one to believe it.

    Then you have the scanning, which I am far from competent - let alone expert - at. But 70-80 mp is regarded as a fair equivalent of 6x6 or 6x7 film, 4x5 is considered as around 300-350 mp, 8x10 at around 1.5 gigapixel or more, depending on the lenses and film used.

    What the test actually does is compare a crappy scan of a not-very-sharp 8x10 with a digital back. The digital back, by the way, does a superlative job.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,020
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    OK. With 8x10, you have four times the area of 4x5.
    I though that real world issues, like lens field flatness and fall-off, general lens quality issues and film plane flatness in its holder pretty much negated the size difference so that an 8x10 didn't actually capture 4 times more information.


    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    What the test actually does is compare a crappy scan of a not-very-sharp 8x10 with a digital back. The digital back, by the way, does a superlative job.

    Agreed - I just hated to see people 'hung-up' on the scanning resolution non-issue.

  8. #58
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,253
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    None with 8x10, but I've shot a lot of 4x5 in the past.
    Your comments remind me of what I read in my youth.

    In many older photo books there's an assumption that the larger the format the less important it is that technique is perfect, the large negative size it's assumed will hide many faults.

    Maybe that was once partially the case in the 1930's through to the 1950's when 35mm and other miniature formats like 127 & 120 were not really achieving the high quality we expect today.

    When I began using 5x4 commercially in the late 1970's I never realy gave the isuues a thought but bwas always as tight with 5x4 as I was with 35mm & 120. Much later when I began shooting LF for personal work I thought about the raesons, the qualities of different formats more seriously. That was the point when I realised I expected the best from all my equipment, I wanted to be able to enlarge a 6x6 (cm) portion of a 5x4 negative and have the same quality as a 120 6x6 negative. I wanted similar when i moved to using a 10x8 camera and I got what I expected.

    My point is that old books hawked myths that have been long gone, but those myths pervade even today in the background.

    Ian

  9. #59
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post


    Agreed - I just hated to see people 'hung-up' on the scanning resolution non-issue.
    Hardly a non-issue. The comparison is faulty in part because of the scanning.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Hardly a non-issue. The comparison is faulty in part because of the scanning.
    Yes, they really stepped on their cranks with that so-called "test".

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin