Jump to content

A challenge for 8x10 film users


c._sharon

Recommended Posts

<p>From the Luminous Landscape web site</p>

<blockquote>

<p >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?</p>

<p >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, <a href="mailto:mreichmann@rogers.com">please let me know</a>, and when the IQ180 is shipping in May let's get together and find out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >Any users of 8x10 films here willing to take up LL on its challenge?</p>

<p > <br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase_one_iq180_field_report.shtml</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I shot with an IQ180 system the other day. And I also have long experience with shooting 8x10 film.</p>

<p>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. <br>

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. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Did you see it used on a Hasselblad H system?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On a PhaseOne camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, with a IQ180 you can't do platinum contact prints...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Output to film and you can. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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. <br /> <br /> 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.</p>

<p>Digital technology doesn't deliver this unique quality no matter how closely it may resemble it. Different is not the same.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...