Undervalued 4x5

folks

<P>

some time ago I started doing some testing (just because I can't

just '<i>know it</i>' I prefer to know it) on my recently aquired 10D and my 4x5. I put together

<A HREF="http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/digital/CP20D10D/10DvsLF.html" target="_blank">this page</A> showing what I consider to be the differences between the 'higher end' digital in a DSLR and what LF can do. Back before I had a DSLR I was stunned to read stuff that suggested that there wasn't much in it. It was nice to '<i>prove</i>' to myself that this isn't the case.

<P>

however, I'd appreciate feedback on the above page just to 'field off' any criticism from folk that just can't accept that digital shouldn't rule the world. I'm sort of academic, so I guess that I'm after "peer review". As fellow LF users you're definately that. Even better if someone in here also uses a DSLR too ;-)

<P>

thanks :-)

Hi Gary,

 

I forget the Epson model I've got - either 2400 or 2450. The backlight is only 2" x maybe 10" long, hence the stitching. I've read that the 4990 has the entire lid as a backlight, and that's what I want to get.

 

Yup, still got the Airhead, bought it in May 2005 for a 2-up exploration of CO ghost towns with g/f Sharon. Did my first 1k day on it. And then just kept using / riding it... Rode it to work today. Turned 85,000 miles earlier this week. That's not an old photo, it was just taken this spring at Crane Creek State Park, a wildlife / bird refuge on western shore of Lake Erie.

 

The coolest m/c shots I've done were at Greenfield Village during Old Car Festival, when I was taking pics of a 1920s Indian with my 1920s B&J press. Folks were taking pics of me taking pics, and getting out of my way, and whispering "Oh, he moved. Did you get it?" about me.

 

Anyway, took some nice shots, and the Indian's owner was one of the folks impressed with the old camera, so I offered prints of what I'd shot if I could sit on the Indian. He accepted. Was very cool in many ways, and when I mailed him the pics he was thrilled with the results. Said his vintage motorcycle club thought he'd found another Indian to buy, as they looked vintage due to the lens and contact printing.

 

:):):)

 

And my g/f took a full-color digi shot of me on that marroon Indian, grinning ear-to-ear. I framed it.

 

:):):):):):)

Hey Gary,

 

Regarding the stitching - I've gotten faster / better at it over time. Credit there goes to Lee Frost's book on panoramic photography, where he stitches manually. Bring in multi images with copy-paste, and each will be on its own layer. Set opacity on the image you want to move to maybe 40% in PS, then move it close with the cursor. Zoom in *tight*, then use arrow keys to move it *one_pixel_per_keystroke* into exactly the right spot. Use eraser function to erase extra overlap where not needed, till you've got it perfect.

 

Sounds like a lot of work, but after you do a few it's faster than having my computer run out of RAM 3-4x while trying to use Photomerge with big files.

 

Oh, and turn off "Automatic Exposure Correction" in the configuration of the scanner before you start, so that each neg is scanned with the same exposure.

 

Above technique is how I stitch panos, how I line up stereo shots, and how I stitch my 4x5 stuff as well.

Doug,

 

The light opening in the lid of an Epson 2450 is large enough to scan a sheet of 4x5 film

using the film holder that came with the scanner.....so yours must be a different model.

 

Great story about using your B&G 4x5 to take photos of an old Indian!

 

Interesting article in a recent issue of View Camera magazine about using older view

camera lenses. Any one else see that article?

 

Now if I could only get out to use the equipment more often!

 

Gary

AA used mostly very good equipment, at the time. Zeiss and Cooke lenses, among others. EW was financially challenged and used very simple equipment, a light bulb to make contact prints, cheap lenses etc. They mainly used 8x10 for landscapes. Good old 8x10 can hardly be improved on, except maybe with modern lens on a 5x7 or 8x10, possibly on 4x5 for some subjects.

Gary,

 

Attached are two of the Indian; an overall and a detail of just the engine castings. The overall has been greatly downsized, but the detail has not.

 

Lynn, thanks for the info. I talked with a guy recently who used a B&J like mine proffessionally, he was giving a talk on the early days of TV and his involvement in that in the Cleveland market. Said he ended up with a B&J in the WWII days because the Speed Graphics were really hard to come by. That's all before my time, though.<div></div>

Here's the detail. I love how the letters each stand out...<div></div>

Love the diner shot somewhere up there. Great tones in that one.

 

To the tester. Not sure that 10D (6MP) vs 4x5 is a really fair comparison. I have to agree that drum-scanned LF still beats most digital (except for BetterLight) but the 1Ds or the new Nikon D3 have some real advantages that need to be taken into account.

Hi Les

 

I agree that the top full frame digitals go very high indeed. For the "money is no problem" professionals it is hard to ignore their advantages and the outright quality that the provide (and anyway, who'd want to photograph sports with a 4x5?).

 

I guess that the fact that you haven't said so many things indicates that what I've written isn't too far out of your experiences. I was seeking criticism (I've since spotted a few grammar and spelling mistakes too ;-) on my methods and the 'reasonable-ness' of my conclusions.

 

thanks for your time

My D5XL never runs out of RAM and I've yet to see something compare to the way it "scans" images onto actual photographic paper:)

Just my humble opinion, but every test I've ever seen comparing digital to medium or large format missed the boat. Every test concerned itself with resolution, and frankly it appears that top-line digital cameras can pretty well match medium format and approach 4x5. But I don't think that's where the larger formats shine at all. Well-done prints I've seen from medium and especialy large format, especially black & white, have some magical quality that I can't quite define. Its the beautiful tonality and such, and it flat looks different from digital and is quite beautiful. Digital simply doesn't offer that.

 

Incidently I've never shot even medium format, much less large format - my life has been 35mm and digital (Canon 20D). So I'm not a large format guy refusing to accept digital - I use digital and I like it. Its just my observations - a print from 4x5 has a beauty that exceeds anything digital by a wide margin.

 

jZ

Jim

<P>

sorry if I've come across as "refusing to accept digital" it is actually my main capture method today

Never meant that at you, Chris - it was just a back-handed commentary on the usual attacks by the digital crowd at folks who are happy with film (and of course the war goes both ways). Actually I still shoot some film myself and have a complete black & white darkroom in my home, but I still envy you that your main method of capture is 4x5. Digital is cool, and I have complete control of my image, yet I keep looking at medium and large format because of the beautiful prints I've seen from them. Digital (and 35mm film) can't come close.

 

Jim