A challenge for 8x10 film users

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by c._sharon, Feb 10, 2011.

  1. From the Luminous Landscape web site
    After now using a P65+ for a couple of years there's no question that it exceeds 4X5" film in resolution, dynamic range and colour fidelity. So, what about the 80 Megapixel IQ180? Should it have been called the IQ8X10? Is an 80 Megapixel 500 Megabyte file able to equal 8X10" film?
    I don't know. My seat-of-the-pants guess would be – yes. So, here's my challenge. If there's anyone out there that is still shooting 8X10" film, drum scanned or printed in the chemical darkroom, and who would like to do a side-by-side shoot out, please let me know, and when the IQ180 is shipping in May let's get together and find out.​
    Any users of 8x10 films here willing to take up LL on its challenge?

  2. I shot with an IQ180 system the other day. And I also have long experience with shooting 8x10 film.
    it is true: with good lenses on the camera the iQ180's ability to resolve ultra-fine , real world detail that at meets or possibly exceeds the ability to do the same with 8x10 film. And that is with the IQ180 set to ISO 400 and comparing it to ISO 100 8x10 film.
    Want to know the really sad thing about the IQ180? Once you see what it can do you are not going to be happy with 20-25mp resolution if ultra-fine subject detail resolution is one of your grails.
  3. Ellis, I don't have the in's anymore to find out the price of this back. Have you heard? I'm guessing if the old P65 was $33k, the iQ180 must be even more astronomical. I can't begin to make that money pay off for commercial work in my region. Did you see it used on a Hasselblad H system? I haven't played with the new Mamiya stuff, but if you were a Hasselblad guy, owning V systems, and renting H systems now and again, would you stick with Hasselblad?
  4. $44,000 but if you have a P65+ to trade in they will give you 65% off. Good trade in deals for lots of older MF digital backs too.
  5. It could have all the pixels in the world but I would rather look at a picture from a talented photographer shooting a Leica M3.
  6. Why so many words? "Look at a picture from a talented photographer" is quite enough.......
  7. Of course, with a IQ180 you can't do platinum contact prints...
  8. What's interesting is I have a friend who shoots portraits on the street with a Burke and James 8x10 and
    an Aero Ektar lens. His work is definitely not about resolution...
  9. Did you see it used on a Hasselblad H system?​
    On a PhaseOne camera.
    I haven't played with the new Mamiya stuff, but if you were a Hasselblad guy, owning V systems, and renting H systems now and again, would you stick with Hasselblad?​
    That is a hard call. The Hasselblad H systems are very good as you know. From what was discussed the IQ backs , like other Phase One backs, can be used on Hasselblad V series cameras as well as view cameras.
    Of course, with a IQ180 you can't do platinum contact prints...​
    Output to film and you can.
  10. Output to film and you can.​
    There is an easier way!
  11. The real challenge is coming up with the 44 grand.
  12. The real challenge is coming up with the 44 grand.​
    Why? How could somebody not have 44 grand.
  13. It used to be I could afford expensive equipment, and then expense it out over my work, but these prices are just out there in space. Maybe if I was in LA or NYC with a ton of work, but not so much where I live.
  14. Sensible thoughts Michael. If the equipment cannot pay for itself and more then do not buy it. Being a hobbyist I have no use for a thing like that. I just give photos away if somebody wants one. I made a bunch of prints the other day for somebody who lost their loved one. I scanned it from a picture that they had on a piece of printing paper. I was suprised at how nice it came out actually.
  15. I suppose that all picture making methods that can lay down detail finer than the eye can see may be contrived to look the same. An 8x10 gelatin-silver photograph exposed in contact with a sharp negative has delivered this quality for more than a hundred years. I routinely and without exceptional thought or effort turn out "infinitely" sharp 8x10 contacts for about $5 all up, film, paper, and chemicals included.

    That some mark-making machine can print sharp pictures from fancy electronic files is mildly interesting but ultimately irrelevant to me. What I really want to look at (and make) are those pictures which have a particular special relationship to subject matter. It's the relationship that comes out of the fact that the pictures are made from light sensitive materials and the light that exposed them came directly from the subject matter.
    Digital technology doesn't deliver this unique quality no matter how closely it may resemble it. Different is not the same.
  16. I hope LL is able to conduct the shootout. I am curious about the result and looking forward to it. I would be surprised if the MFDB does better.
  17. I emailed Michael for the challenge but I will be just using a 400 dollar MF camera. Same format he compared to a
    10 megapixel DSLR.

    Waiting for his response on how to meet and looking forward to it. It will be awesome.
  18. Mauro: That's great. I hope you can participate. Now I am really looking forward to it.
  19. I hope he doesn't back down.
  20. Mauro,
    Pretty much everybody but you agrees that 135 format digital is in the same league as MF film. So what challenge exactly do you think you are posing?
  21. Scott, your assumption is incorrect. And not everybody is confused like you.

    Many people believe that up to a certain print size (11x14 or 16x20) the advantage of MF's higher detail does not make a big difference on print.

    Not a single photographer I know would questions that MF film captures more detail than a 35mm DSLR.
  22. Let's hope Michael takes the challenge so we can all evaluate how a $44K 80MP back performs against roll film.
  23. That is not the challenge he set, why should he consider your lesser challenge?
  24. You have a point as this may contradict his previous findings.
    He and I are exchanging emails now. I will let you know how it goes.
  25. Remember that 6x7 film is a whopping 80% larger than the IQ180.
    When used say on an RZ67 you will be discarding that much from the information the lens projects onto the film.
  26. Scott, in addition, the Bayer pattern will rob some of the resolution captured. Phase Ones Achromatic 39 megapixels far outresolves a P45 back and it is closer to the P65 back.
    Phase One's own R&D agrees with this.
    That leaves the new 80MP back resolving around 70% of its nominal resolution.
  27. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/achromatic.shtml
    Scroll down to the watches comparison where Capture One's VP of R&D points at the loss in resolution from a color patterned Phase One back.
  28. An 8,000 dpi drum scan of 6x7 Velvia, TMAX or Tech Pan will comfortably out resolve it in my opinion.
  29. And that unfortunately, Mauro, is the problem, your opinion is unwavering. I remember being told in a MF thread that a 21mp 135 format digital camera could not produce a 170kb inline image that had the texture, tonality and all around "film" quality that a MF image could.
    Enjoy your opinion.
  30. Same here.
    Michael R. tested the P45 against the 645 film (just over half 6x7) and with sharpening leveled you cannot tell any differences in detail bcs he downsized the scan to match the P45. Now Phase One is doubling the pixel count, against almost doubling the film area.
    I have performed loads of tests myself (many posted) so little of what I know doesn't come from direct experience. Comparing the new 80MP camera to scanned medium format film is a valid and interesting exercise.
    I hope Michael can embrace the test even though the results may be hard to reconcile with his previous articles.
  31. 8x10 film to 80 MP digital is the same ratio as 35mm vs a 1MP digital camera.
    Film is vastly superior, this excessive would only be testing his lenses and scanner. That is obviously clear I hope.
  32. 8x10 film to 80 MP digital is the same ratio as 35mm vs a 1MP digital camera.​
    Nearly. A 35mm frame is 1.33 square inches so if 8x10 film is equivalent to 80MP then 35mm is equivalent to 1.33MP...... Much better!
  33. LOL.
    Hmmmm.... Let's run a test of what can hold more detail, 35mm film or a 1.33MP bayer sensor.... Challenge is on!
  34. Or,
    Test what is available.
    Use what works for you, be that 24" polaroid or a P&S.
    The argument about the quality that can be got out of a current 135 format digital sensor has been well covered. Anybody that can't get more detail out of a 20+ MP 135 format sensor image than a film image the same size is either inept or in denial, most who use both agree that the 135 format digital can equal 645 film too, but that is up to each user to decide. But if you like film, for any reason, real or imagined, then just use it.
  35. "most who use both agree that the 135 format digital can equal 645 film ".
    Scott, who is most of us? Show me a single test you run were you concluded this.
    Any statement without pictures to support it is just an uneducated opinion.
  36. You should try testing your 6x7 MF film against something like Pentax 645D. Against IQ180 it doesn't stand a chance. I can understand LL's reluctance in accepting your challenge. Their interest is in the latest MFDB vs LF, not MF, film.
  37. I can certainly understand LL's reluctance. It would not look good for them compared to their previous articles. Any of the films I use just in 35mm (especially drum scanned as he challenges) outresolves 18-20 DSLRs on LL's bill test. 6x7 is almost 5 times larger than 35mm. In addition, the 80mp back is just a crop sensor when used on a 6x7 system.
    The results would certainly not look good for LLs evolution of articles. But the results would be out there and he can rectify his position to the readers.
  38. Mauro,
    I never saw a photographer with such a big fishing pole! Use what works for you. I own 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5 and 135 format digital. Trying to prove this is better than that is fairly pointless, particularly when you resort to comparisons like low level light film images against digital ones, but, you use flash on the film ones and say there is more detail! Your methodology is so flawed and biased it makes your conclusions pointless.
    I use what I need for a job, simple as that.
  39. And most times it comes to a matter of taste. Your preference on the final result as well as the workflow. Although film (you pick the format) will trump digital in resolution, resolution is not the most important factor.
  40. "I own 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5 and 135 format digital"
    What scanner do you have?
  41. Mauro, care to tell us what LL guy has to say when you want to 'challenge' with the puny 6x7 :) ? Did you get shoved to one side and been asked to save your breath since he and 1 million other with 1000 millennium worth of 'professional' experience confirmed his finding?
  42. To respect for Michael R (or any other) I would not share specifics of private emails, but pretty much he said he was not interested in testing 6x7 film vs 645 digital as that was old news in his mind.
  43. You may consider renting the IQ180 when it comes out and conduct your own test.
  44. I think I will. The exercise will be interesting to post in parallel to Michael's.
  45. Seriously I think LL just want to throw out ridiculous head lines everytime a new digital back was introduced. Isn't it the best way to draw the most attention without any investment in publicity? Still remember the (in)famous "D30 3MP is greater than 135 provia 'test'" done by them? I remember he did mentioned something like on a larger print the 135 wins, while at lower print size the D30 wins, which means 135 provia certainly contain more than what a 3MP can capture when viewing in larger size. Judging from that, and we extrapolate the potential outcome of the result of IQ180 vs 8x10, (we 'enlarged' the 135 size to 1.5 square inch to give him some handicap) (8x10/1.5)x3=160MP! This is assuming the IQ 180 is PERFECT where all 80Million pixels translate to actual 80 million pieces of correct information! In retrospect, the D30 can NEVER capture more than 1.5MP of useful pixel. Does anyone seriously think either of this is true? I thought there are plenty of his followers say D30 was a god send and again must be near perfect. How could it only capture less than 1.5 MP? Or maybe the IQ180 80MP is a miracle tool that 1 pixel can behave like 2? LOL When you do not have a solid background and just throw out claims after claims, one day you'll find that many of them are just, well, unqualified 'claims' and some will even bite you back... I think MR is just fooling himself and his loyal cult followers.... :) LOL Or is he just trying come out with the same silly conclusion like " in a 'small' print size the IQ180 wins, and in larger print size the 8x10 wins"? Shooting himself in the foot for the 'n'th time...
  46. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Whatever happened to photography that was about what the result was and what it meant to the viewers? There seems to be a group of people who regularly think it's about materials science. I don't know anyone in the general art viewing public who wants to look at technical tests. But from many of the people posting here, I see nothing but. What's going on? It has nothing to do with photography, just materials.
  47. If experienced photographers think IQ180 reaches a new level in image quality then it is useful to know how good it really is. If it can be as good as 8x10 film then digital imaging will have reached a new milestone. What is truly a waste of time is the other thread going on about 35mm film and FF digital in low light.
  48. Or how about the so call 'experienced photographers' are incompetent enough to obtain the max out of 8 x 10? Do you seriously think it is even, err, remotely possible? My limited experience in 4x5 showed to me that HD39 can only smell the smoke trail left behind by it. I don't know how good the IQ180 is when you have 2 x the pixel count of HD39. 8x10 does have 4 times the surface of a 4x5... Funny how the HD39 (not mine) consistently produced 'plasticky' prints when printed with a Dursk printer (again not mine but an ultra rich studio owner who said he can never recover the cost of the printer from his photographic business) on true photographic paper(not any low end Epson ink jet). When shooting landscape it fared much worse due to the extra high resolution needed on leaves and fern. LL is a sponsored site, remember?
    OTH, I do agree that Mauro picked a wrong title in the other thread. It should have been 'High ISO performance of various FILMS' or something to avoid over reaction from digital crusaders.
  49. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    It should have been 'High ISO performance of various FILMS' or something to avoid over reaction from digital crusaders.​
    No, it should have been "Yet Another Thread About Materials and Equipment Rather Than Photography.?
  50. Funny how Jeff didn't leave the above remark to ALL the equipment vs equipment threads in ALL the forums, digital or otherwise? :) Materials and Equipment yield no photograph, but it certainly HELPS to produce higher quality photographs. Granted a great photo is a great photo, but if Ansel Adam were to shoot his B+W masterpiece with my 640x480 VGA camera phone, it won't be that 'great'... Or in that case I'll just wish he shot it with 4x5, isn't it that easy to understand?

Share This Page