 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / April 2006Why not both?
It would seem that with 4x5 and larger that there's nothing digital (within a practical price range) to compare with a nice contact print. This shot (http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/modelshot.html) was "split" print. The first (short) exposure was at high contrast to get the background to go dark. The second (longer) exposure was at low contrast, dodged so to burn in the texture of the skin tones and jeans. (I've forgotten the paper that it was printed on.) At this point I've not found a solution in digital that will accomplish this with the same amount of information (detail/nuance in the image). If someone can correct me, that would be useful. Yes, one could duplicate the process with these steps: (1) select everything but the subject, (2) darken those areas with the appropriate filters, (3) select the subject (4) filter to bring out texture and skin tones. The basic technique would be the same, but without as much information the prints just seems to lack something. You just can't burn in information that's not present. My conclusion is this: There are still some things that can't be done in digital that can be done in the chemical darkroom. On sheet film there is so much more information. Does anyone else feel the same way? caveat: this may well change when sensors approach 4"x5" in size. Collin KC8TKA > Yes, one could duplicate the process with these steps: (1) select > everything but the subject, (2) darken those areas with the appropriate [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Does anyone else feel the same way? No. With your analog method, you used the same negative in both cases. So the image on that negative is all the information you've got. Nothing wrong with that, but it's the same starting point I'd use for a digital back-end. Everything you're describing could have been done from a good scan of that same (4x5) negative. Or better yet, if you're going for perfection, *two* scans of the negative, superimposed with layer masks in Photoshop. One scan would be optimized for the tones in the background, the other for the skin tones and jeans. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com Interesting. Yes, this was a 4x5 shot. That *could* yield the same results if the scan would yield all of the information on the neg. How much resolution would be needed to get all of the information on the neg? Would this (this type of situation) be a good opportunity to turn the scan into an 8x10 inkjet neg for contact work? > Interesting. > Yes, this was a 4x5 shot. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Would this (this type of situation) be a good opportunity to turn the > scan into an 8x10 inkjet neg for contact work? Figure that the best of large format B/W used at normal working apertures hits near 60 lp/mm on the film (C.Perez et al test data). Rounding that off to capture gives 3000 ppi. You could do that with either a modern drum scanner, a high end flatbed like Creo EverSmart, Screen Cezanne, or Fuji. Since all scanner work better in a horizontal and vertical orientation, there is some merit to scanning higher resolution that this to capture diagonal details as best as possible. However, there is nearly no benefit to scanning large format film beyond 6000 ppi. While inkjet negs are somewhat popular and relatively low cost, the better output is either a plate setter (1200 to 2400 dpi), a monochrome laser output (600 to 1200 dpi), or getting a service bureau to do the output (2400 or 2540 dpi). Be aware that dot gain and spot size can affect the true output of any inkjet, in other words don't use the manufacturers claims of dot placement to mean output resolution. Then you still need to consider the printing method, and the limits of that. Very high quality commercial printing often is a 300 ppi file, though some systems do well with a 400 ppi file. The best choice in scanning is to match the output to the scanning requirements. Scanning at a resolution higher than you require might be good for some editing, though in reality it usually just gives you a huge file that slows down your computer. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> All that cost and work would almost make chemical work practical. At least at this point in time. Collin > > Interesting. > > Yes, this was a 4x5 shot. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > though in reality it usually just gives you a huge file that slows down > your computer. Something to think about is that you can deal with a much larger image on a computer if it is B/W compared to color. I have a pretty limited system, only 1GB of ram, and as such it slows down when I deal with images that are much over 100MP, but when I work with a monochrome image I can work with images that are over 200MP without problems. Now for a 8 x 10 print even 100 MP is way overkill, something between 8 to 12 MP should be enough. But if one is going to the work of shooting a 4 x 5 might as well scan at a fairly high resolution, save the scanned image, and then down sample the image that will be adjusted and printed. A 4 x 5 negative has so much area that a really good scanner is not really needed, you should be able to get by with one of the Epson scanners that can scan LF. Figure a scan resolution of 2400 ppi, gives you are image with 115 MP which is large enough for big prints if they are wanted later and yet small enough that just about any computer should be able to easily handle it. I know there are some people who believe you can always go back and scan at a higher resolution if it is needed later but this can be a problem, particularly with BW since you can't scan using dICE. Negatives only get dirtier with time never cleaner, the first scan is going to be the easiest. Scott >>>Interesting. >>>Yes, this was a 4x5 shot. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > images that are much over 100MP, but when I work with a monochrome > image I can work with images that are over 200MP without problems. I have some old proprietary software called LivePicture that can handle even 1 GB image files in real time. The trick, as far as I understand the software, is that the changes you do to a file go into a build file, then when you save those are applied to the file. Anyway, in PhotoShop I probably normally work in the 100 MB to 200 MB file sizes, though some images can grow quite large while doing some edits. A more high end software, like Alias Studio, though now with the Autodesk buyout it will be tough to tell the direction of this. I should mention that LivePicture is dead software without further development, and requires maintaining an old computer to run it. > Now for a 8 x 10 print even 100 MP is way overkill, something between 8 > to 12 MP should be enough. Depends upon the output media desired. There is an entire world of very large printing choices, though if this was simply going into a magazine, then the requirements are quite reduced. But if one is going to the work of shooting > a 4 x 5 might as well scan at a fairly high resolution, save the > scanned image, and then down sample the image that will be adjusted and > printed. My normal practice in graphic design has always been to oversample, then reduce to print size later. The only times when that is not done would be due to tight deadlines, or with some drum scans (saves clients a little money to scan only as much as you will need). A 4 x 5 negative has so much area that a really good scanner > is not really needed, you should be able to get by with one of the > Epson scanners that can scan LF. The Epson 10000XL is a good choice, though the price new is nearly what a better used Creo will run. I know of places doing professional level work with lesser equipment, but I don't really agree with that approach. Figure a scan resolution of 2400 ppi, > gives you are image with 115 MP which is large enough for big prints if > they are wanted later and yet small enough that just about any computer > should be able to easily handle it. If you check the specifications on scanners that are capable of that (optically, not file sizes), then you can stay under the $US 10k level. What usually has been more important is a true high DMax capability, which can sometimes be more important than the resolution, even when just scanning B/W film. > I know there are some people who believe you can always go back and > scan at a higher resolution if it is needed later but this can be a > problem, particularly with BW since you can't scan using dICE. > Negatives only get dirtier with time never cleaner, the first scan is > going to be the easiest. One workflow method is SOOM, meaning Scan Once, Output Many. The only real downside is storing the image files. Most of the Creo choices in flatbed scanners have offered a wet mount station as an option. That allows using drum scanner oil for the scans, and does make a large improvement. They seem to be running around $1800 over the price of the scanner, so I suspect some places might not have that option. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > If you check the specifications on scanners that are capable of that > (optically, not file sizes), then you can stay under the $US 10k level. > What usually has been more important is a true high DMax capability, > which can sometimes be more important than the resolution, even when > just scanning B/W film. You can do ok for around $400 with an Epson 4990 This review show a fair number of test scans. http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204990/Page%207.htm Sure it will not be as good as a high end scanner but a large piece of film does wonders in this kind of thing. A 4 x 5 scan should end up very nice off of this. As for high DMax, I don't know how well this scanner does but you can always do the trick of scanning twice. My point here is that it is better to scan with a fair scanner then to not scan at all. If there is one thing that has made LF more accessible to people I would have to say it is cheap flat bed scanners that can do a ok job at scanning the film. If I was on the mainland I would probably mess around with a LF camera and flatbed scanner just for fun. Scott >>If you check the specifications on scanners that are capable of that >>(optically, not file sizes), then you can stay under the $US 10k level. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > My point here is that it is better to scan with a fair scanner then to > not scan at all. Sure, people need to work with what they can afford. > If there is one thing that has made LF more accessible to people I > would have to say it is cheap flat bed scanners that can do a ok job at > scanning the film. At the very least they should be okay for internet display of images, FPO, or small publication reprints. Not much to keep people from hiring out a better scan whenever (perhaps rarely) they might need one. > If I was on the mainland I would probably mess around with a LF camera > and flatbed scanner just for fun. It definitely opens up another realm of possibilities. Too bad you don't have more facilities on the big island. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > >>If you check the specifications on scanners that are capable of that > >>(optically, not file sizes), then you can stay under the $US 10k level. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > FPO, or small publication reprints. Not much to keep people from hiring > out a better scan whenever (perhaps rarely) they might need one. Oh come on, at 2400 ppi a 4 x 5 scan can be printed to 40 x 32 and be extremly sharp. Keep in mind that 2400 is half the optical resolution of the 4990 and at 2400 resolution you can get a fairly sharp scan. This is far better then you could ever do with a MF camera and a drum scanner. So are you saying that MF on a drum scanner is only good for internet dispaly? Scott >>>>If you check the specifications on scanners that are capable of that >>>>(optically, not file sizes), then you can stay under the $US 10k level. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Oh come on, at 2400 ppi a 4 x 5 scan can be printed to 40 x 32 and be > extremly sharp. Low actual DMax is more of a problem than resolution. Sure there are work arounds, but if it really mattered it would be better to use a better scan, even at the same resolution. Going with the very common $14/sq.ft pricing on large prints, that means near $125 for a 40" by 32" print. How many people spending $125 for a print are going to use a low cost scanner to do that? Why not get the best 2400 ppi scan you can get, rather than being cheap about it. If it was me printing an image that large, I would want more than just an acceptable print. > Keep in mind that 2400 is half the optical resolution of the 4990 and > at 2400 resolution you can get a fairly sharp scan. This is far better > then you could ever do with a MF camera and a drum scanner. So are you > saying that MF on a drum scanner is only good for internet dispaly? The Epson 4870 rated (claimed) by Epson to deliver 4800 ppi, though in a test published in View Camera May/June 2005 only managed 2050 ppi. The Epson Dmax specified was 3.8, while the same test indicated an actual 2.55. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the 4990 is an evolution of the 4870, so I would not expect a huge change in results. I would be fine with an actual 2050 ppi (or slightly better), but not too happy about the low actual Dmax. I am on Epson's professional mailing list. You might find it curious that the only professional level scanners in the brochures Epson sends to my office are the Expression line, and that has been the situation for several years. The latest of that is the 10000XL, with a few different configurations available. The Expression 10000XL seems to be capable of an actual 3.2 to 3.4 Dmax, depending upon whose tests you pick; that is a Dmax I could find useful. I suppose I need to provide a glossary of terms when I reply. Internet usage is not so much resolution limited as colour space limited, since nearly everyone on the internet is viewing near sRGB on an 8-bit monitor. FPO means For Position Only, meaning that the image file is a placeholder in a layout, and is swapped with a better quality scan just prior to output (only applies in commercial printing). Small publication means magazine full page output, given a standard magazine size printed in a more typical 150 lpi. Resolution is only one small factor in scanning; quite often the colour range and Dmax can be much more important in getting a high quality output. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >Interesting. >Yes, this was a 4x5 shot. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >How much resolution would be needed to get all of the information on >the neg? Who can say? I have one data point, for what it's worth, that says 2500 spi is enough. For 4x5, anyway. I sent a favorite 4x5" C41 (Porta 160) negative to a friend that runs a pro photo-services shop (he's on this list and may be reading this.) The image was taken on my Shen-Hao with a Nikon SW 90mm at around f/22. He did a 6:1 optical enlargement of a section of the negative and also did a 2500 dpi drum scan. Offhand, I don't see any detail in the optical print that doesn't show up in the scan. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>Interesting. >>Yes, this was a 4x5 shot. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Offhand, I don't see any detail in the optical print that > doesn't show up in the scan. Makes perfect sense to me. Using this data: <http://ww.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html> Your Nikon SW 90 mm at f22.0 should be hitting less than 54 lp/mm using colour negative film. That basically means 2500 is about all there should be on the film. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >Makes perfect sense to me. Using this data: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >colour negative film. That basically means 2500 is about all there >should be on the film. I don't see any support for that conclusion on the link you provided, Gordon. Nor do I accept that color negative films lack the resolving power of chromes. In fact, I just went through several of Fuji's film data sheets one more time --- Velvia, Provia, Astia, Reala. Here's how I read the charts: (MTF @ 50% response) RVP100F 50 cyc/mm (Velvia 100F) RVP 50 cyc/mm (Velvia 50) RVP100 50 cyc/mm (Velvia 100) RAP100F 30 cyc/mm (Astia 100F) RDP-III 30 cyc/mm (Provia 100F) CS 60 cyc/mm (Reala) There may be other reasons not to use C41 emulsions, or there may be other factors that relate to "effective" resolution -- but measured MTF of Reala is actually better than any of Fuji's chromes. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>Makes perfect sense to me. Using this data: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't see any support for that conclusion on the link you > provided, Gordon. A Nikon SW 90 mm on the C.Perez list is showing a best of 54 lp/mm using B/W film. Perhaps you have a different lens than one on the list? Anyway, the theoretical limit at f22.0 in green light is 68 lp/mm. I think the 50 to 54 lp/mm range would be quite respectable results for any lens used at f22.0. > Nor do I accept that color negative films lack the resolving > power of chromes. C. Perez was using B/W film, TMax 100 processed in D-76. My guess was that his choice of B/W film might be able to allow resolving more detail than your choice of colour negative. Colour transparency film was not mentioned. > In fact, I just went through several of Fuji's film data sheets > one more time --- Velvia, Provia, Astia, Reala. Here's how [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > but measured MTF of Reala is actually better than any of > Fuji's chromes. How did you take my post as attacking the use of colour negative films? You really confused me on this one. I based my comments, and provided that link, on the basis of your choice of lens, not on your choice of film. Before you jump all over that, I think you have a good lens, so I am not criticizing you for you choice of lens. Just to be thorough, I would not criticize you for your choice of camera either, since I like Shen Hao 4x5 cameras. Wow . . . was it just a bad day, or was my typing that bad? Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >How did you take my post as attacking the use of colour negative films? >You really confused me on this one. I based my comments, and provided [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Wow . . . was it just a bad day, or was my typing that bad? Sorry, I misread your post... I didn't see where Chris Perez' results said much at all about film-type. Plus, of the nine numbers given, 54 is absolutely the lowest. I wrongly assumed you were making some sort of point about the resolution capability of color negative film Hell, I know it's a good lens. The camera's not bad either, at least for a beginner. I'm eagerly awaiting some real-life user reports from the new Epson film/flatbed scanners on LF... Some full-res scan snippets would be nice. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >. . . . . . > > Hell, I know it's a good lens. The camera's not bad either, > at least for a beginner. > . . . . . . . . I thought you had done large format previously? I am getting back into it after several years of no large format (unless you count Polaroid work). My lens choice for this return is a 135 mm. I thought 90 mm would be a little too wide for me to re-familiarize myself. I might end up with a 75 mm at some point as a second lens, though mostly for some architecture situations. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >. I might end up > with a 75 mm at some point as a second lens, though mostly for some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com> 65mm. I have a 90 as well and its never been quite wide enough, I considered a 75mm and then went out and rented a 65mm to shoot the Hippodrome restoration here in Baltimore. It proved to be a good choice, some are even using the 45mmXL Schnieder lenses, but 65mm is the widest my camera accepts without a special recessed board. 65 really limits the movements however on my camera.  SignatureCarry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com >>. I might end up >>with a 75 mm at some point as a second lens, though mostly for some [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > widest my camera accepts without a special recessed board. 65 really > limits the movements however on my camera. The more limited movements on some of the 65 mm choices were the aspects that pushed me to look more at 75 mm. Of course, that Schneider 72 mm would be nice, though I would need a pretty good commission to justify one. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > >>. I might end up > >>with a 75 mm at some point as a second lens, though mostly for some [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com> I got the 65mm for about 700 used,....thats the great thing about LF a lot of people drop out after a short time of doing it. I've shooting 4x5 almost as long as I've been a photographer 1982 ,....LF since 1984. SignatureCarry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com > [...} I've shooting > 4x5 almost as long as I've been a photographer 1982 ,....LF since 1984. So why did it take you to 2005 to get into this group? Pants on fire, Greg BLANK? > > [...} I've shooting > > 4x5 almost as long as I've been a photographer 1982 ,....LF since 1984. > > So why did it take you to 2005 to get into this group? Pants on fire, Greg > BLANK? Actually. I've been on this group since well before then. Almost as long as I have had an ISP,...which was around 1997-8 however. My email address has changed several times which may be the reason you can't research it. SignatureCarry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com >>>>. I might end up >>>>with a 75 mm at some point as a second lens, though mostly for some [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > a lot of people drop out after a short time of doing it. I've shooting > 4x5 almost as long as I've been a photographer 1982 ,....LF since 1984. Definitely a reasonable price. I have seen several 75 mm choices go for around $500 to $600. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> [SNIP] > > I got the 65mm for about 700 used,....thats the great > > thing about LF a lot of people drop out after a short time > > of doing it. I've shooting 4x5 almost as long as I've been > > a photographer 1982 ,....LF since 1984. > Definitely a reasonable price. I have seen several 75 mm > choices go for around $500 to $600. Time for a wee gloat... I just bought another Arca-Swiss 6x9, thinking I'd swap any parts that were better than any on the two I have and then sell one back on. The reason for buying it was that it came with three roll-film backs and a nice case, and the whole package cost me less than the backs alone would normally. There were also two lenses included. One a 65mm. Well, I already have two Schneider S-A 65mm f8 lenses, and plan to sell one of them, so I thought that would just be another one to sell. Turns out the lens is actually the f5.6, which has quite a lot more coverage than the 'only just enough' f8. Woo hoo... Now I just have to decide whether to sell both the f8s, or to keep one because they're so small and light. And if so, which one. Ah, decisions decisions ;-) Peter > [SNIP] > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > because they're so small and light. And if so, which one. Ah, decisions > decisions ;-) Well, you do seem to find the deals. My luck has not been quite as good, though I am so far happy with what I use. I am still undecided on the rollfilm backs. I keep looking at that motorized Mamiya 6x8, mostly just because 6x8 is sort of unique. Quite likely I would just end up with a Horseman 6x9 at some point. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:28:40 +0100, "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote: >Now I just have to decide whether to sell both the f8s April 26, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, Two cameras with identical lenses ... hmm, stereo ... regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ >>. . . . . . >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >with a 75 mm at some point as a second lens, though mostly for some >architecture situations. I've been shooting LF since... early 2004 or so. I got the Shen-Hao and the Nikon lens from Badger. I'd worked quite a bit with smaller formats before that time, but never LF. A wider lens would be nice but has several practical issues. The Nikon 90 was a happy compromise, and Kerry Thalmann's recommendation was the clincher. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>>. . . . . . >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > issues. The Nikon 90 was a happy compromise, and Kerry > Thalmann's recommendation was the clincher. I tend to like Thalmann's tests too, combined with the Perez tests. What they have done is pointed out some very good older lenses that can be found at reasonable prices. Both are a valuable asset to the LF community. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > It would seem that with 4x5 and larger that there's nothing digital > (within a practical price range) to compare with a nice contact print. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > caveat: this may well change when sensors approach 4"x5" in size. A scanning back can do quite well in colour or monochrome captures, though it is poorly suited for portrait work. The other thing is that a true silver print has a different look than inkjet. While it is possible to output a digital negative for a contact print (Burkholder, et al), the technique is slightly more involved than a straight image to contact prints. Another two items that many overlook are print resolution limits, and the limits of human vision. Many people cannot see better than 5 lp/mm on any print (some claim up to 8 lp/mm). Some printing methods are just not that good at very fine high frequency details, with some of the best printing methods achieving only as fine as 10 µm spots (inkjet is much coarser). There are digital capture systems that can make quite good prints that many will find to their liking. There are still film cameras that can create compelling images. I think there is more to choosing one over the other than print quality. Mostly I see these as complimentary choices, but the rhetoric of the internet will always try to push digital capture over any film formats. People who participate who participate in internet forums are quite fanatical evangelists of digital capture. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> Yes, it is definitely a "religious" matter to many. Collin But how good is a scanning back for landscapes where the wind or even a modest breeze is blowing leaves and grasses? Also, are there yet any good prices on the older, bulky scanning backs with their own tethered processors attached? Collin |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.