B&W - DSLR (20D) vs 6x7

[gustav1]

I have a couple of questions about medium format and DSLR:

 

I wonder if there is anybody out there who has made the switch from

medium format (pref. 6x7 and up) to DSLR (like the 20D, not leafback

or 1DsII since they cost like a small car) and found that they get a

significally better results.

I don't mean Reichmanns tests which are preformed under perfect

conditions and is compared to scanned chromes or some of the lpm-

tests out there???

 

 

How do you think a DSLR is performing next to say a 6x7 tmax100 in a

fibre print 12x16 inches? I want to hear about tonality, dmax,

sharpness and most important; the overall feeling.

[Dave Luttmann]

I can only compare a 10D and 1DS to B&W capture with a Mamiya RB67. Color work is far more forgiving than B&W. I find that the 10D compared to my RB67 and Ilford Pan F film at 11x14 and 16x20 is no contest. The DSLR looks soft in comparison. Less of a difference in color, but still apparent. Even the 1DS does not compare. I shoot mainly with Pan F and Technical Pan, and there isn't a DLSR on the market (yet) to compare.

[Dave Luttmann]

Sorry Gustav,

 

I didn't answer your question fully. Tonality and Dmax are virtually the same as these can be controlled to a great degree through Photoshop controls from both scanned film and digital capture. The 6x7 wins easily in terms of sharpness. Resolution between the 1DS and 6x7 is clearly noticable...and glaring between the 10D & 6x7. Beyond 16x20 however, grain from film starts to impact apparent resolution from the film. At this size, digitals higher accutance helps out with the increasing lack of sharpness. For a 20D though, stick with film for your B&W work. The look of fibre based B&W hasn't been matched by inkjet yet...although I do some quadtone inkjet on a 7600 that comes pretty darn close.

 

All the best.

[bob_cook]

Here's sort of an answer - not exactly your scenario, but maybe helpful. I just

had two 8x10inch prints made, both from 6x6 Ilford XP2. One from the

negative on fiber based paper, and one from a 4000dpi film scan printed on

an Epson 2200. The most significant difference was in smoothness. On the

Epson print, the transitional areas between highlights and shadows are not

smooth. On the tradtional print the same areas are much smoother; I think it is

due to a "broader" or "longer" sweep from light to dark. Just looks a lot better

to me. Sharpness is fine on both. The Epson print was made by someone

who has quite a bit of experience. The fiber based print was made by a

person who specializes in exhibition grade, high-end black and white

traditional printing.

[johnmarkpainter]

Gustav,

 

I shoot a lot of B&W and print in my own Darkroom. I also have a Nikon D100 and shoot

in RAW fromat and print on an EPson 2200.

 

With experimentation....I am getting better results from my Digital than when I first

started, but my Film/Darkroom results are always better.

 

jmp

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

A 12x16 print from 6x7 is a 6x enlargement. Unless you really botch the development something fierce, such prints should be as good as photographs ever get.

 

While IMHO the 20D is competitive with 35mm in terms of detail capture, it's not going to be anything like 6x7. 12x16 is about 200 dpi from the 20D, and that will look very nice if you keep your eye at least 12" away from the print, but it won't stand up to close scrutiny.

 

Here's a simulation of 16.7MP digital (the 300D has a very similar pixel pitch to the 1Dsmk2) compared to 645 Tech Pan at 4000 dpi. The (crudely sharpened, sorry) digital image is hand held with a zoom at 22mm at f/8 (upsampled to match the scale of the 645 scan) and the 645 image is on a tripod, mirror locked up, with a 35mm prime at f/8.

 

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473562/original

 

So at 16.7 MP, digital capture is rather similar to 645 _in actual real-life practice_. (Real world image (not test charts) acquired with (almost) affordable tools (4000 dpi scanner), not microscopes, the only cheating being the use of a discontinued film.)

 

Note: I doubt TMAX 100 would look a lot different: TPan's advantage should show up at higher resolutions or under a microscope.

 

My conclusion would be that it is _not_ justifiable to expect 8MP to be competitive with 6x7. The tests I've seen show 8MP being competitive with 4000 dpi scanned Provia 100F. 6x7 is four times the area.

 

But the main problem with digital B&W is, as others have pointed out, that printing is problematic.

[gustav1]

Thank you all for your answers and testimages. You have supplied all information I needed!

 

/gustav

[gustav1]

I think that DV-cam vs 35mm cinema has the same differences like aps-c vs 6x7. Don't think it has only with sensor size to do though. Anyone else feel the same?

[mike_elek]

Keep in mind that when shooting b/w with digital, it still has the exposure latitude of transparency film. When shooting b/w film with a medium format camera, the exposure latitude should be wider.

[paul utkin]

This problem has dual sides - first is the capture and second is printing since we speak here about the final product.

 

To match 6x7 tmax say let`s assume we use 16/22mp digital back. OK we got a source.

Next problem is to print it out. Here it comes into very simple problem - it is almost impossible to print good neutral B/W with any inkjet printer. It look that the only workaround is to go with quad tone inks like Lyson etc but Lyson inks do fade very fast.

If you have more money you can buy dedicated RIP for your printer but even here you are not guaranteed against bronzing and metamerism issues and slight color casts in shadows plus no inkjet print looks as chemical B/W print. Well, may be inkjet may look OK, but only until you take good gallery quality b/w and compare side by side. Partial workarounds are known - use luster paper, quad tone inks, spray it over but, well, all that is like a black witchcraft and not a known recipe.

 

May be the better solution could be try to print on LightJet but I never tried it. If anyone knows perfect solution how to produce great neutral b/w - I`ll be more than welcome to hear that. What printer, what inks, what paper, what RIP, what workflow.

[christian_sabel]

Hello Paul,

i agree with you as far as the superior quality of the 6x7 is concerned. But to get neutral B/W prints out of your printer is just a question of a well build ICC-Profile. You can profile any printer-ink-paper combination to achive accurate color and a neutral tonal-range too. If you want to print your pictures, there is no need for an extra RIP, you would only need one to proof a complete page-design. A Colormanagement aware application (like Photoshop >=6) is all you need. Unfortunately the equipment you need for profiling (spectralfotometer and software) will cost you a fortune. I recently offered profiling as a service to several Photographers (Pros and nonPros) and their are all very happy with the results. If this is interesting for you please contact me.

 

Christian Sabel

[gustav1]

I originally said:

<b>pref. 6x7 and up) to DSLR (like the 20D, not leafback or 1DsII since they cost like a small car)</B>

 

And got replied:

<b>>>To match 6x7 tmax say let`s assume we use 16/22mp digital back</b>

 

 

But now we're speaking affordable products. A 6x7 camera with high quality lens can be bought for 500 dollar and therefor only a pro would financially benefit from using digital back instead of film. That is why I limited my question to Dsrl and preff in lower segment of productline (like 20D or D70). Well, at least I got you all going didn't I =)

[clyde_rogers]

I've used quite a bit of TMAX 100 in a Mamiya 7, and have also used a Canon D60 quite a bit.

 

The D60 wins for convenience and speed. The 7 easily wins for photo quality. In fact, in my opinion, for black and white photos, 35mm (tripod mounted, excellent fixed focal length lenses, and fine-grained film like TMAX or Delta 100) is better than digital.

 

I really like digital, and the quality is impressive (especially when compared to high ISO 35mm). But for black and white, film is hard to beat. With either digital or film you can beautiful digital soft, real-paper matter finish prints (similar but not exactly platinum). You can also use either to make digital negatives for platinum prints. But nothing digital that I've seen is comparable to an air-dried fiber-based gloss silver print. Nothing.

 

Even from 35mm, I can get silver prints with more subtle tonality and better sharpness in small details than digital can provide (although digital's edge sharpness is better). From 6x7 negatives, the difference is even more pronounced (at least to my eye). Even with digital prints (piezo quadtones) 6x7 wins easily for fine detail (although, while beautiful, no quadtone gives quite the subtle tonality of a darkroom print).

 

Realize that these are picky points---most folks would find little to choose between digital and darkroom prints. But there is something going on that I can't measure or quantify, and don't really understand---my best film-based prints are just a little bit better than my best digital prints. Consistently. And they're often quicker and easier to create.

 

Two years ago, digital replaced 35mm for me, and I was hoping it would replace 6x7. Today, for black and white, I'm using 35mm again and my 6x7 isn't going to be replaced in the forseeable future.

 

Oh, and I'm not getting rid of the digital either---it's a great, versatile camera.

 

--clyde