I love the look of digital over film -- help.

[leo_grillo]

As a fine art photographer, I have fallen in love with the look of digital (see my post today under

DIGITAL).

 

I also love shooting LF (two 8x10s and a 4x5). To make 40x50s out of digital, I have thought about

stitching 17MP shots together to get near the resolution of even a 4x5.

 

It's the immediacy of the digital print hat I love -- the "being there." If I could match the depth of field

and resolution of LF, but shoot digital for the look, I'd be in heaven.

 

Then I had a project where I HAD to shoot with a point and shoot camera -- 7MP. I could not believe

the DOF. I tried another brand -- same thing. Yesterday I got my Coolpix 10MP P&S -- same thing

again! It beat out my high end cameras for DOF!

 

Is the world really flat? Has anyone else lost sleep over this? Have you found an answer? HELP.

 

Leo

[ellis_vener_photography]

"I also love shooting LF (two 8x10s and a 4x5). To make 40x50s out of digital, I have thought about stitching 17MP shots together to get near the resolution of even a 4x5... If I could match the depth of field and resolution of LF, but shoot digital for the look, I'd be in heaven."

 

You can do better than 4x5: Try http://www.betterlight.com

[leo_grillo]

Thanks, but I forgot to mention I am a landscape photographer so a computer in the field

is out of my league.

Leo

[bruce_watson1]

The Better Light backs are legendary, but they have their own limitations. The Phase One backs for MF cameras do well also. But if this is the route you intend, do bring a fat wallet.

 

As to the DOF thing, DOF is related to focal length which in turn is realted to film/sensor size. It's no surprise that DOF increases as film/sensor size decreases. The problem is that as film/sensor size decreases so does the amount of information captured.

 

This is one of the reasons why view cameras separate the film plane from the lens plane -- so that you can tilt the plane of focus and thus overcome some of the lack of DOF you get by moving to larger formats.

[r_johnston]

Why would a computer in the field be out of the league for a landscape Photographer?

 

I've been using one for years, even before Laptops were available. Began in the 80's with a Desktop that I'd set up on the Dash of my RV, and a generator for power. Now am using a 17" Toshiba laptop with a 160gb HD in it. Tigerdirect.com has great bargains available. We as photographers can do anything we really want. There are several articles on that website about landscape photography... Take what works for you, discard what does not, and make your own unique adaptable setup.

[w_t1]

I've lately been toying with the idea of doing a 3-month "no digital" diet and shooting film-only for the summer, if for nothing else to lighten my load for a while! I can say I like both, and still like my 4x5 BW darkroom. You're probably aware of this, but go to Really Right Stuff's website and download their pdf catalog, then look at the section on shooting panoramics, they have an example or two of multi-row panoramics, at least the 06 catalog did.

[ragc]

I have my own answer: I tend to be a 'photojournalist' by natural tendency, always recording places and events and working very quickly. I use a Nikon D50 and shoot to my heart's content. Then some days I wake up with a yearning to create photographs. Those days I leave the Nikon behind and head to the great outdoors with my LF camera, plenty of loaded filmholders, my tripod and my lenses, measuring tape, spot meter, dark cloth, etc. I take my sweet time then, and enjoy myself. Those are the best days!

[michael_briggs2]

Your statement seems contradictory about whether you prefer the DOF of LF or P&S digital cameras.

 

For the same f-number, view of the scene (which implies scaling the focal length of the taking lens) and final print size, smaller formats have more depth of field. To have the close to the same depth of field, the f-number scales with the linear dimension of the format. But if you stop down too far, diffraction will ruin the resolution. This has nothing to do with digital vs film, except that inexpensive digital sensors are very small.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Thanks, but I forgot to mention I am a landscape photographer so a computer in the field is out of my league."

 

Have you seen Stephen Johnson's landscape work? He has been using Better light backs for large format landscape work since about the mid 1990s. http://www.sjphoto.com/

[leo_grillo]

Thanks for the responses.

 

To be blunt, I have developed a loathing for computers, having been into them since CP-M

and Kaypros (before DOS even!). Using a computerized digi back on the LF, and waiting for

the writing of the image let alone the wind to stop, ruins the joy for me.

 

I love the immediacy of the digital look and I was a pioneer filmmaker in using the High

Definition Sony F900 for feature films (though I owned two 35mm film systems).

 

To clarify: I love LF -- it is the real joy of photography, for sure.

 

But with all the work of making a LF picture, then scanning and PSing, then printing -- all

of which I send out now -- I found to my dismay that those newer P&S cameras give me

the DOF rivalling the 8x10 Velvias (which I still have in the freezer) -- at least in the 8x10

print. Larger it will fail of course. But I WISH these cheapos didn't look so great!

 

My high end DSLRs can't touch the DOF of the P&S either -- for the 8x10 print. Color is

better in the Canon (over the Nikon) and resolution is fabulous too -- but the DOF is as it

should be. Itis not the mind-blower that the P&Ss are.

 

I guess I am just as disappointed in the superb quality of the P&Ss as I am about the

American Idol girl winning Best Actress over truly seasoned professionals at the Academy

Awards this year! Is she as good as those women? Is she even a professional actress? Is

she a fluke? Very disturbing. I guess the world CAN BE flat. Maybe the spacecraft just shot

it with a fisheye.

[michael_briggs2]

What you are saying about DOF doesn't seem to make sense. You like the DOF of field from a P&S and an 8x10, but not that of a DLSR? Maybe are reacting to the overall appearance more than to the depth of field? Large depth of field isn't commonly thought of a strong point of 8x10 cameras -- unless you are stopping way, way down. If you prefer a P&S and Velvia over a high end DSLR, maybe what you like is high color saturation.

[Troll]

NOthing to be embarrased about -- you're just one of the few who has the guts to admit what most(?) of us probably have discovered. Sort of like, the Porsche is great to drive to work, but taking the old Bentley out on Sundays is really something special.

[nickc1]

I seem to remember that there were a few posts a bit back where people were trying to attach flat bed scanners to the back of 8x10 cameras to make a scanning digital back - I don't think that kind of DIY is for me, but I wonder what the results were like if anyone suceeded?

[ragc]

Yes, please let us know... I do have an old 5x7 scanner (or is it 4x6?) somewhere...

[ralph_jensen]

Leo wrote: "I found to my dismay that those newer P&S cameras give me the DOF rivalling the 8x10 Velvias at least in the 8x10 print. I WISH these cheapos didn't look so great! My high end DSLRs can't touch the DOF of the P&S either for the 8x10 print."

 

I guess I don't understand. You seem to imply that maximizing depth of field is ("was," for you) the main reason to shoot LF, and now your expectations have been shattered upon learning that a smaller capture area and shorter focal length lenses give greater DOF (which, by the way, is not news to most LFers).

 

But I don't know of any LF photographers who would say that "maximizing DOF" is why they shoot LF. There are, as you note, easier ways to "have everything in focus" than hauling around 20-40lbs. of kit, so there has to be some other reason so many still choose to shoot sheet film.

[bohdan_pryszlak]

"there has to be some other reason so many still choose to shoot sheet film . . ."

There are some really, really nice digital cameras and the results one can get are marvelous - in fact, they may even be better than LF. So why do I continue to shoot LF? For me it isn't about having the latest and greatest piece of modern camera technology. I just plain like the stuff that I already have. It's damned good enough! Plus, I like the whole bloody ritual of setting up this heavy old thing and popping in a film holder, hearing it "click" once it seats itself, using a cable release - all of that. It is part of an extremely pleasurable experience that satisfies me. The pictures are mighty fine as well.

[leo_grillo]

http://clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth/index.html

 

On another board I got this great site (above) for an explanation as to DOF and P&Ss, etc.

Having no interest in P&S untl this accidental usage blew me away, I had not thought about

it before now. I also did not know this board existed! BTW: There is also a great DOF

calculator and even a table that you an print out per lens and per camera on this site.

 

Background:

Years ago I was at the museum and I saw a wall-sized painting from a medieval artist. I

was apparently transfixed upon that scene -- a whole village with stuff happening every

square foot of canvas -- because the guard came up to me to ask if I was okay. I'd been

hypnotized for at least 20 minutes and he was concerned.

 

I turned my attention from 35mm to include LF that day -- to reproduce photographically

that medieval artist's work: i.e. a large print that had such DOF and clarity that a viewer

could study the photo for a long time and everywhere he looked stuff was there -- in

focus -- a feast for the eyes.

 

That was around 1987. My LF work is mostly post-modernist landscape, but I strive for

that DOF goal.

 

Investing in the Canon 1DS2 and TSE lenses is my attempt to stitch up the same kind of

picture electronically because I like the look of the digital -- the immediacy -- the "being

there" -- better than film. That is my preference.

 

Yes, I love the process of LF photography and will continue ... unless the stitching

ultimately works out to be a "better" print. Then I'll have to go with the better tool for THIS

job, though the shooting part will be less joyful.

 

Thanks for the thoughts,

Leo

[michael_briggs2]

To compare the depth of field across two setups, you have to be specific about what you are holding constant and what you are varying and how. Seemingly slight variations in how the comparison is setup will change the answer. The answer that I gave in a previous answer in this thread is mathmetically correct. When Clark says that two different cameras have the same depth of field at the same aperture, he doesn't mean the same f-number, he means to scale the f-number as I described to keep the physical aperture the same diameter.

 

His assumption is that the depth of field comparison is for identical photon noise. But most people don't use P&S cameras to have photos of identical photon noise to photos made by users of DSLRs or 8x10 cameras, so typically P&S photos have lots of depth of field. Maybe you want to regard this more as a matter of sociology than physics.

[leo_grillo]

Thanks Michael et al,

 

You were right -- I was wrapped around the axle. As I said in the discussion board this

morning:

 

"I was just SHOCKED that at the outset, the P&S cameras have come such a long way as to

beat a high end camera out of the box. I have since tweaked all my C&Ns to actually BEAT

the look of the P&S -- according to me, my wife still likes the other look (!) -- but that

happened this morning after much research, posting, reading, etc. I am doing some work

with law enforcement in a few weeks, and a "real" camera is not allowed -- though I can

take the P&S all day long. Now I am looking forward to it."

 

I am also looking forward to receiving the Fotoman 810PS that these boards have directed

me to. Can't wait to experiment! I will start lifting these little dumbells that have been

lying beside my desk for months.

 

When the F3 came out I used to say "let Nikon do it" and I stopped using MANUAL and

instead used the "A" program and trusted the software. And so since on the DSLRs. I guess

I should have been more interested in tweaking the "look" in camera and not in Photoshop.

WIth P&S you don't have to, I print straight from Mac's "PREVIEW" program. THAT'S what

blew my mind.

 

Thanks again for all your help,

Leo

[keith_lubow]

If you shoot slide film and scan, you are way ahead of anything you can get with a digital capture, in my opinion. This is due to one major factor, and that it the fact that you can pull highlights back up to 2.5 stops (and push them as well). The tonal range and control you are afforded by this destroys digital capture. You have the zone system in color this way. You can make it look "digital" after you scan by oversharpening it and doing whatever other Photoshop stuff you like to do.

[leo_grillo]

Keith, I have a better-than-digital on my wall, from my 8x10 Velvia scanned about 10

years ago. But so far smaller formats have not done so well. Just testing 4x5 for this very

thing.

 

Incidentally, there's an article I am going to read about Kodak's new neg films and their

being conjured up to scan as well as positives. I'm going to get some of that too.

[mark liddell]

This is a weird thread. I don't understand you depth of field fixation.

 

"Yesterday I got my Coolpix 10MP P&S -- same thing again! It beat out my high end cameras for DOF!

Is the world really flat? Has anyone else lost sleep over this? Have you found an answer? HELP."

 

No I have not lost sleep over this, smaller film area/sensor means more depth of field and digital is no different to film in this regard as you must have noticed when you moved up from 35mm. It also always means a poorer quality image.

 

Spending more and getting a "high end camera" does not buy you more depth of field. If you want extreme depth of field why on earth did you ever shoot 8x10?