Digtal vs 8x10 film

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Anybody take a look at this yet.<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml<br>

Is this really correct. I remember that D30 test years ago.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>How many more Digital vs film threads will we have this week?</p>

[greg_miller10]

<p>When I first saw the subject of this post I thought the same thing as Larry Dressler but it really is an interesting article and was glad my attention was drawn to it.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Well.......<br>

 <br>

I have to say that I am a bit skeptical about those film scans.  I scan 4x5 at a bit more than twice the dpi they mentioned for the 8x10--thus equivalent+ magnification--and my results are better than those--Imacon 848 scanner.  I have also seen prints with larger magnification from 8x10 film--Richard Misrach Beach series--and you can count the grains of sand in those 8'x10' foot prints shot from his hotel balcony. <br>

 <br>

That said, I am a long time 4x5 film shooter.  I make various size prints up to 40x50 and comparing 4x5 images to those shot on my 1dsmkIII at that size will leave most impressed with the results of the smaller camera.  Certainly, the digital shots don't have that organic feel that the nominal grain in these prints imparts, but that can be remedied if one were so inclined.  i don't buy the articles conclusions totally, but I do think digital is now a viable alternative if that matches one's needs and intended use.<br>

 </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>The scans are less than 800ppi and show grain on Fuji acros 100. What did they develop the Acros in? Also the Ektar shots are really unsharp. Something seems so wrong to me.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>They are comparing 80MP to 8x10 film. That's 1 million pixels per square inch. That's the equivalent of claiming you only need 1.33 million pixels to equal 35mm film. Something which even the most pro-digital photographer would admit to being nonsense.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Several years ago I was in San Francisco and saw a set of very large color photos. They were being exhibited somewhere near Fosherman's Wharf. The photos were taken on large format Velvia, which was then scanned. I contacted George Schaub at Camerashopper to see of he would be interested in an article about the photographer and his hybrid workflow. As things turned out I did not have time to work on the project. A year or two ago there was an article in the NY Times (I think) about a tinkerer who used large sheets of aerial film for enormous prints. The film was so large he had to build a camera for it. There was a lot of PP because the film was not made for regular shooting. As I understand it, very large b&w prints made by projection printing of large format negatives still look better than anything you can do with large digital files and digital printing but you need very expensive equipment. Comparing scans of film with original digital files has only so much validity. Projection printing of the negative compared with digital printing of the original digital file will give you a better idea of what each method is capable of. </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>See I was right....</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Comparing scans of film with original digital files has only so much validity. Projection printing of the negative compared with digital printing of the original digital file will give you a better idea of what each method is capable of.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. If you want to compare one with the other (and I really couldn't care less now) you have to compare a fully digitally produced print with a fully optically produced print. Otherwise it's just a digital vs. scanner test and the scanner is usually the weakest link.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p><img src="http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSiU4UkRlIzhphPIlUFvLuBBHrZbyBB-uMmdFWrnGRDYFkFPz_q" alt="" width="194" height="259" /></p>

[steve m smith]

<p>I'll have one of those orange apples please.</p>

[leighb]

<p>Larry...</p>

<p>You printed that backwards.</p>

<p>It's supposed to be apples to oranges, not oranges to apples. ;-p</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Really you need to compare using the methods you would use for producing your prints. No point to even think about optical prints if that is not what you usually produce. There are a great number of people today that do not produce optical prints so it is perfectly valid for them to compare film scans to digital images. Personally I would more interested in optical prints myself but many packed up their darkrooms and went over to scanning film and producing digital prints. What I was concerned about was how a low resolution just under 800ppi scan could look so soft in the center of the image especially the Ektar scan. I would have expected a it to look tack sharp especially as it was from a drum scanner.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>LOL I am Appoled I made that mistake. :-)</p>

[starvy]

<p>I know that many find these threads boring but they are interesting to a few like me!</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Not to take anything away Starvy but I have to say if the archives were looked at all this has been said before and since there have been no improvements in Enlargers and the enlarging lenses or scanners in years all is just what one feels and feelings can't be explained. If they could there would be no wars in the world.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Well, I'm not sure how he got so much grain in a 745 ppi scan for the Acros. Did he push the film 10 stops in Rodinal? That said, I'm sure the IQ from the digital back is superb. I've played enough with the P45 and know that despite the better resolution of 4x5 film, I can produce a 32x40 from the P45 that is superb. The IQ180 should be quite a bit better still.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, a 40mp camera is sufficiently close to 4x5 that I'd be happy to go there. But take the LL site with a grain of salt. We all remember to well the Canon D30 vs Provia which became the laughingstock of the internet. As an owner of the D30, I can tell you the comparison is nothing but joke.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>LOL Dave. Contrast was not enough for that. Thing is they hit the spot then started to reduce sensor size... I used to be in the Air Force and we used LF film in a roller in SR-71s and other Aircraft. Thing is Digital cameras took a shit load of Gama ray shielding in upper altitudes and space that though was quicker it weighed more. No more waiting for the film to be returned and processed.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>That test is to be disregarded. I emailed the L. Landscape to run the test against medium format and they declined. They toy with their readers.</p>

<p>They are scanning at 745 dpi (laughable) and also indicating that they come up with grain and blurry images. It is silly but a long lived tradition for the L. Landscape.</p>

<p>Well that is not what film looks like. </p>

<p>Their medium format digital camera is easily outresolved by MF film.</p>

<p> </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>It is also very funny they scan the film at fewer megapixels than the digital camera to make sure they don't look bad.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I use a V700 and I get better... with smaller... Ohh well this is a dead thread unless you ant to keep it alive with real truth and scans. I am too lazy to do it again..</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The L. Landscape does provide some amusement factor though with their silly articles.</p>

<p>I wonder if it intentional just to entertain people with humor.</p>

[eddy_d]

<p>Are the digital enlargements photoshopped or Straight out of the camera with no post production work?</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The L. Landscape does provide some amusement factor though with their silly articles.</p>

<p>I wonder if it intentional just to entertain people with humor.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Like A somewhat famous Nikon guy what is his name? Ken Rockwell or something..... :-)</p>