[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 56 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


All work safe boards are now on the 4channel.org domain. Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

There's now a setting option under Navigation to display the full list of boards on 4channel.org

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!



File: 20150413_181413.jpg (167 KB, 900x600)
167 KB
167 KB JPG
Is there yet a digital camera that would hold a candle to large format film? Does anything on the market come even close?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D5200
Camera SoftwareCapture NX 2.4.7 M
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.3
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern1026
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)66 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2015:04:13 22:29:59
White Point Chromaticity0.3
Exposure Time1/40 sec
F-Numberf/5.3
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length66.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width900
Image Height600
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3402137
>>
>>3402137
Why do you care?
>>
>>3402137
whats the point of large format?
>Resolution?
Even 24mp are more than most people need
>Aperture?
You have lenses on fullframe with razor thin DOFs that you can barely focus. Except large format lenses have better performance at such large apertures (sharper, less CA etc).
>Low light performence?
digital sensors are better in low light than 35mm film but maybe large format film can hold up to it?
>dynamic range
digital sensors have 13-15 stops, how much does large format film has?
>>
a pixel shifting gfx-100 might...
I think a high-res digital medium format Foveon X3 could go toe-to-toe with large format film, but I'm sure it would cost a house or two
>>
The answer is no. Ignore every other post preceding and succeeding this one.
>>
>>3402137
If there is I can’t afford it. I was able to repair an 8x10 camera for a total of under $300 so even if film is insane it’s overall a winning proposition
>>
File: _0016861.jpg (336 KB, 867x889)
336 KB
336 KB JPG
>>3402137
depends on how you are comparing digital and LF and what you expecting. I shoot 4x5 and have some experience with digital MF

If you are wet printing LF, no
If you are scanning and digitally printing LF, any contemporary MF digital and some FF SLRs will print the same sizes
If you want movements, add $6000 to your Hasselblad for the Tilt & Shift Adapter, or similar dollars for a collection of Tilt & Shift canikon lenses

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH
Camera ModelGXR MOUNT A12
Camera SoftwareGXR Firmware
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:06:14 14:33:07
White Point Chromaticity0.3
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3776
Image Height2832
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3402137
4x5 scan backs and that one new 4x5 sensor that came out a while ago.
>>
>>3402171
>what’s the point of large format?
Basically, yeah, resolution. Like, I’ll agree with you that 24mp is more than most people need, and that more resolution isn’t even noticed in most cases, but... large format is something else. The level of detail large format film resolves is insane.
>>
File: DSC06207.jpg (294 KB, 800x1200)
294 KB
294 KB JPG
>>3402183
>>3402181 here
it is hard for someone who has never shot AND printed LF to really understand this.

The largest I can do in my dark room is 20x24 (pic related) and it is insane. This was HP5 (not known for it's tight grain) and insanely crisp, I could go much bigger but I don't have room for bigger trays.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareILCE-6000 v1.00
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationLeft-Hand, Bottom
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2017:09:19 06:45:13
Exposure Time1/80 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-2.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3402190
what would large format be in megapixels?
>>
>>3402181
tilt/shift cannot go as far as large format due to optical considerations. the quality of the glass becomes a limiting factor very quickly for small formats.
>>3402171
you're missing a big one. perspective. (although you can imitate this with pano)
>>
>>3402196
>you're missing a big one. perspective. (although you can imitate this with pano)
Reminder: Perspective is entirely based on subject-to-camera distance and is not a factor of focal length. If you're trying to make the argument that LF looks different because you get telephoto-compressed perspective with a wide field of view because lenses are longer, you're going to make yourself look foolish.
>>
>>3402171
It's not so much about resolution as it is contrast. The resolution is just "more than you need", but the low frequency MTF often runs -very- close to 100%.
>>
>>3402193
Something like 400 MP according to some site I read a while back, can't remember exactly which one though.

>>3402171
In theory larger sensor=better noise performance. In practice it doesn't pan out this way all the time, but that has more to do with what purpose cameras and accompanying technology are designed for. Meaning, large format is generally relegated to things like landscapes, portraits, and architecture so a theoretical ISO 51,200 film hasn't been developed for it because most people do not shoot large format hand held or otherwise need/want high ISO when using it.

>>3402137
Nothing really compares to it in some factors, yes. It's one of those things that can be a great boon to your photography if you actually benefit from it, but comparing this to a 135 format camera is like comparing a diesel locomotive to a pickup truck. Yeah, the locomotive has a shit ton of power and can pull much more, it's also incredibly slow moving and requires a set of railroad tracks to move around, whereas the truck can navigate everything from alleys to streets to country roads and even off roads. In other words 135 gives you a lot more versatility compared to large format, and that IQ is not going to benefit you if the shot you're trying to do requires a wicked fast reaction time, lightning speed AF and some insane ISO sensitivity to pull it off.
>>
File: STA1600B.jpg (50 KB, 864x508)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>3402137
https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/04/19/the-worlds-first-single-shot-8x10-digital-camera-is-yours-for-106000/

https://www.engadget.com/2006/06/19/dalsa-ships-111-megapixel-ccd/
9μm x 9μm Pixel 95.04mm x 95.04mm Image Area

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width864
Image Height508
>>
>>3402193
>>3402219
I saw a large format camera start up company claiming an equivalent of upwards of 600 MP, but whatever it is it's obscene.
>>
>>3402226
Film doesn't have megapixels, it's a nonsense question.
>>
>>3402229
duhHhhHhhhhhhhhhHHHhhhhhhhHHhHHH

That's why I said "equivalent." But being condescending about the question isn't any help. It's not totally nonsense since corollaries can be drawn between grain, lines, and pixels, but it's a super rough estimate.
>>
>>3402225
Ther LS911 is quite retarded. why only 12 megapixel? they could halve the pixel size in half and still have huge pixels and lotsamegapixels.
>>
>>3402137
Can't wait for Fuji to bring this design aesthetic back.
>>
>>3402229
Sure it does. It still has resolving power, in the individual light-sensitive chemical granules deposited on the paper. There is an upper limit to that resolving power based on the size and sensitivity of those granules, and you can compare it to digital by calculating what number of pixels would it take to equal that level of resolving power.
>>
>>3402137
Stitched digital. The resolution can go far beyond LF because you're not limited by diffraction and lens quality, but nodal point rigs and stitching software are an even bigger pain in the ass than LF, and there are even more restrictions on motion within the scene.

>>3402229
The resolving power of film works in a different way, but you can still estimate rough equivalents. E.g. for real-world scenes, Velvia tops out at something like 15 MP per square inch; thus, a 4x5" Velvia sheet is 300 MP if the lens is perfectly sharp across the entire shot (it won't be, but even 100 MP would still be impressive for something that doesn't cost five figures)
>>
>>3402261
If you try to calculate the upper limit of resolving power via the size of individual grains/dye clouds and take them as pixels, you'll end up with ridiculous figures, hundreds of megapixels even for a 135 frame.

The issue with comparing digital and film is that while grains are tiny and randomly distributed, they're also discrete - they don't have intermediate tones between "exposed" and "not exposed", while pixels are much bigger but can discern hundreds to thousands of brightness levels. Thus, film resolution heavily depends on contrast (film specs tend to list resolution figures at a specific contrast value or MTF), while digital retains the same resolution until contrast is low enough to approach the noise floor - it's sort of like comparing a low-resolution full-color TIFF to a higher-resolution dithered GIF.
>>
>>3402239
Manufacturability.
>>
>>3402210
you cannot take dslr photos that imitate large format perspective without panorama. this perspective is the most significant aspect of the large format "look". you are the fool for thinking otherwise.
>>
>>3402306
Did you even read the post you're replying to?
>Perspective is entirely based on subject-to-camera distance. If you're trying to make the argument that LF looks different because you get telephoto-compressed perspective with a wide field of view because lenses are longer, you're going to make yourself look foolish.

The "LF look" comes from sharpness, small depth of field and a smooth bokeh transition that's different from what ultra-fast small format lenses tend to have. It has NOTHING to do with perspective, lrn2 geometric optics.
>>
>>3402296
Smaller pixels are easier to make.
>>
>>3402313
Smaller *sensors* are easier to make, not smaller pixels. Otherwise everyone would be making 200 MP crop sensors.
>>
>>3402314
Wrong. if they're already making fuckhuge sensors the cost is negligible.
There is no point in such a huge sensor if any FF picture will be better.

12MP is laughable on such a big sensor. 50MP would have been the minimum. even in Astrophotography when the need every drop of light and prefer big pixels over resolution they don't use such big pixels. 24µm is considered huge. 75µm is retarded.

Thing is DOA, shame. digital 4x5 would be far more usable.
>>
>>3402175
Fuji GX format is only a tiny bit bigger than full-frame. Even calling it "medium format" is a stretch.
>>
Why hasnt anyone mentioned scan backs yet?
>>
>>3402175
>high-res digital medium format Foveon X3
This

What about scanning backs, are they still a thing?
>>
>>3402229
You can scan film and the max usefull scan without showing heavy grain can be seen as the megapixel equivalent of the film.
Its a question that arises when scanning 35mm movies.
>>
>>3402324
>the cost is negligible
You don’t know the technical details of how they’re making that sensor. Obviously they’re not just using the same technique that we use for FF and below or the $100K+ price would be an amazing bargain basement price.

So presumably there is something about the process that makes it NOT a negligible cost to increase the resolution.
>>
>>3402210
>>3402309
>"It has NOTHING to do with perspective, lrn2 geometric optics."
the_ironing.png

It's obvious he meant perspective *correction* which is keeping parallels line parallel, by using rise/fall instead of tilting the camera, or shifting to the side to photograph a reflective surface without getting the camera and you in the reflection.
>>
File: img_04_02.jpg (55 KB, 630x299)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>>3402346
Considering 450mm fabs are dead, unless they aren't stitching smaller sensors together, they're printing 1 sensor on each 300mm wafer. that would cost hell more than $100k. so they're probably just gluing 50mm sensors together.
>>
>>3402347
I don't see anything about correction, tilt or shift in that post. It sounded like the usual "the perspective on LF is different because you're shooting with a 180mm lens instead of a 50mm one" drivel.
Furthermore, tilt/shift movements are by no means impossible to do on a smaller format.
>>
File: 305154_original.jpg (1.15 MB, 2244x1768)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
>"You can only use large format to shoot landscapes!"
*blocks your path*
>>
>>3402347
>It's obvious he meant perspective *correction*
1. It’s not obvious that he meant that. It’s a pretty common misconception that larger formats look different because they attribute telephoto compression to a longer focal length rather than to a narrower field of view.
2. Given that he’s talking about panoramas (ie, brenizer-method type shooting), which would not help replicate tilt/shift perspective correction but would be a fix for the focal length thing if that were a real thing, I’d say there’s a very good chance he WASN’T talking about that.
>>
File: imagesvc.timeincapp.com.jpg (123 KB, 1440x1109)
123 KB
123 KB JPG
>>3402371
There's a dude shooting NASCAR with a LF camera. Although the results are of questionable value.
>>
>>3402349
Yep. So maybe there’s something about the stitching that works better with lower resolutions (eg, if the border between each sensor has to be the same size as the border between photosites, so it needs to be lower resolution or there will be a grid of blank spots across the frame). Or maybe they’re just using so many small sensors that the cost of higher resolution chips becomes a major factor. I dunno. I’m not an engineer at the company. And neither is the guy I was responding to, so he can’t just say “they’re idiots for not making them higher resolution”. I’m sure it occurred to someone at some point that it would be nice to have a sensor higher resolution than a prior-gen micro four thirds, so the obvious conclusion is “they had a reason for it” rather than “a team of engineers who made the first commercially-available one-shot large format digital camera are all complete morons who know nothing about making a camera”.
>>
>>3402371
Hey, just a quick heads up: literally no one said that. So if you’re trying to argue with a specific person, you’re actually arguing with a straw man.
>>
>>3402389
The whole thing reeks like vaporware and BS anyways. I doubt they have any "engineers" working for them, they've probably just called DALSA and asked them to manufacture the biggest sensor they could for them.
>>
>>3402391
this is the most reddit post I've seen all week
>>
>>3402395
If it were vaporware, why not say it’s 1024MP?
>>
>>3402399
Less chance of being called out
>>
File: analogue vs digital.png (31 KB, 623x435)
31 KB
31 KB PNG
>>3402193
it's a false equivalency
In my experience my Hasselblad can print about the same size as a 30-40mp digital camera, but the scans need to be around 80mp (max res from the Coolscan 9000) to achieve that print size.
>>
File: LR Slow Emulsion.jpg (31 KB, 356x257)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>3402414
It will get even more complicated with T grain film which because of the shape and overlap of the grain will not scan well unless scanned much higher than it's actual resolution, but appear sharper than it really is when wet printed
>>
>>3402190
moar
>>
I shoot 4x5" for landscapes. Resolution is the least important reason for me to shoot large format film. Yes, it's nice to have an extremely high detailed image. The main selling point, though, is tonality, which is something hard to explain if you have never seen a transparency film in person under the loupe and eventually properly printed.
I also shoot with a Fuji XT2 and I have shot with digital MF, yet nothing compares and most likely nothing digital ever will. My digital camera can recover shadows far better than film, you can have all the megapixels of this world and the highest DR yet when it comes down to image quality and tonality we are speaking different languages. One process is digital, the other one is chemical, there is no more to add here. Of course this doesn't make LF film superior in every field, just in some.
>>
>>3402239
>implying you need more than 12MP
>>
>>3402324
>Thing is DOA, shame. digital 4x5 would be far more usable.

Like you could buy either of them
>>
>>3402330
>are they still a thing?

Better Light is still in business if you want to buy one.
Dicomed, Leaf and Phase gave up on them years ago.
>>
>>3402496
What Digital MF have you used?
>>
>>3402523
Anything below 16MP is unusable today.
>>
>>3402347
thanks for e help friend but I wasn't talking about perspective correction. although that's another feature that's infinitely more relevant than fucking detail resolution.
>>3402379
>>3402364
look you guys and your turbo autism can mouth off and split hairs all you want, but the point is if you wanted to replicate the field of view of a large format camera with a dslr you'd either need to use a highly distorted wide angle lens or move farther away. this amounts to a difference in perspective.
>>
>>3402309
Of course the photos of the same wideness will have more realistic perspective as the same scene is less compressed. Its like optics 101.
>>
>>3402934
Google Translate is not doing you any favours my man.
>>
>>3402778
not really
10mp is more than most people need, it will spit out a perfectly usable 8x10 or 11x14
>>
File: 800_7921small.jpg (341 KB, 800x612)
341 KB
341 KB JPG
>>3402485
I printed these at a high contrast because they are part of a bigger project.
I also suck at digitising shit / re photographing prints

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D800E
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
PhotographerShawn Chamberlain
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern978
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:12:07 11:20:34
Exposure Time1/4 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height612
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: 800_7922small.jpg (343 KB, 800x612)
343 KB
343 KB JPG
>>3402972

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D800E
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
PhotographerShawn Chamberlain
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern978
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:12:07 11:20:56
Exposure Time1/6 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height612
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: 800_7923small.jpg (389 KB, 800x612)
389 KB
389 KB JPG
>>3402974

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D800E
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
PhotographerShawn Chamberlain
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern978
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:12:07 11:21:16
Exposure Time1/4 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height612
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3402966
Or 16x24, from personal experience.
>>
>>3402225
A hundred and six thousand fucking dollars for this.... what in the fuck

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeLargeSense LLC
Camera ModelLS911-M1-V-M
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Windows)
PhotographerBill Charbonnet
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:06:05 21:53:06
Exposure Time1/4 sec
F-Numberf/64.0
ISO Speed Rating2100
Lens Aperturef/64.0
Focal Length305.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3072
Image Height3888
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3402929
> if you wanted to replicate the field of view of a large format camera with a dslr you'd either need to use a highly distorted wide angle lens or move farther away

Uh, what? You do realize that wide-angle, standard and telephoto lenses all exist for LF cameras, right? And the field of view of any camera with any lens is 2*arctan(d/(2*f)) where d is sensor/film dimension and f is focal length, so you can easily calculate focal lengths you need to match the FoV between different formats.
>>
>>3402929
Then I think what you meant to say was “large format gives you more options for lenses with an ultra-wide field of view” rather than “large format perspective is different”, since the latter is patently false if you’re using a large format lens that’s not crazy wide.
>>
File: 2002_03zL0033_F-copy.jpg (247 KB, 819x1024)
247 KB
247 KB JPG
>>3402171
>whats the point of large format?
He has never studied large format photography.

>being able to shift
>taking time (not only for you, but also your subject)
>larger formats handle light differently, learn that before you talk about DOF
>film is superior in dynamic range

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width12000
Image Height15000
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2010:09:09 13:41:14
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width819
Image Height1024
>>
straight from the mouth of Heisler, a TIME master photog
but I don't think reasoning is what people look for here
since it seems that they, OP included, are spamming this film vs digital just for the sake of spamming, like what they used to do with DSLR vs Mirrorless just last year
or that they are trying to justify that they're not missing out on anything with not using lf
>>
>>3403059
I sperg out with this bullshit. The film is still made of fucking atoms. It's still quantized. It's just a higher resolution of digitization.
>>
>>3403070

Film is actually more digital than digital, since a grain is either "flipped on" or not. It's a true binary state. Digital, on the other hand, has a more analog reponse curve.
>>
>>3403059
Do you know what photograph he's referring to?
>>
>>3403076
this one
from his book Gregory Heisler: 50 portraits
>>
At a 1:1 format size comparison, digital blows film out of the water, in every category.

Film also does not have a dynamic range advantage. Only over very old sensors vs modern colour neg film, where you can overexpose, like shoot a backlit portrait, expose for the subjects face and get the sky still.

However doing that flattens the shit out of the highlights, its a hard shoulder curve.


>>3403059
>Whole numbers
>tones jump

It doesnt matter if you use large integers or fractional numbers...

Digital transitions better tonally.

To get better tonality on film you have to jump up format sizes to make everything much finer. Finer grained, and more resolution to have tonal changes across.

One of the reasons why medium and large format in film is prized so much, because 35mm is so shit at this.

Even micro four thirds in digital however can be great at it. Reason being: massive amount of tones available (high bit depth), high resolution, and a smooth enough image not marred by too much noise/grain.

Tilt shift is barely any advantage, because for most people it is irrelevant.
t. experienced film shooter
>>
>>3403363

T-Max 100, real world is about 100 lp/mm with a sharp lens when used well - and that requires excellent scanner or enlarging lens.

So around 30-35mp for 35mm for T-Max 100.

HOWEVER.

It is particularly rough and very low contrast at that range, and becomes barely visible.

Digital remains smooth, clean, and high contrast all the way through (only lens dependent).

To get back to a reasonable contrast, its around 12mp-15mp. But still 12mp digital sensors produce better IQ (apart from not having the higher frequencies).

Even for T-Max 100 I would shoot medium format. Rollei Retro 80s has similar real resolving power to T-Max 100, but much finer grain, can be used well at 50. So its a possible choice for 35mm.

Hence why we go to 6x7 etc, especially if we want to use Tri-X or any other film other than T-Max 100, Delta 100 etc, or even colour (Ektar is quite smooth, but is soft/lacking resolution, Fuji C200 destroys it in sharpness, but is very grainy and only available in 35mm).

On colour in 6x7 while it can actually resolve higher, its better to consider it below 20mp, as higher the image will be rough, in some cases quite patchy in the shadows with grain (that can look hot noise in some cases) - can be worth exposing a bit higher and bringing it down in those cases. Ektar might be a bit better in this case, even though its the lowest resolving in the main colour films, its much smoother.
>>
>>3402171
> >Resolution?
> Even 24mp are more than most people need
Most people aren’t the kind of people who would shoot LF asshat

> >Aperture?
> You have lenses on fullframe with razor thin DOFs that you can barely focus. Except large format lenses have better performance at such large apertures (sharper, less CA etc).
You lost your own argument. If you want super thin DOF as well as edge-to-edge sharpness you need LF.

> >Low light performence?
> digital sensors are better in low light than 35mm film but maybe large format film can hold up to it?
That’s not how films works, why would you even make this post if you know nothing about the subject?

> >dynamic range
> digital sensors have 13-15 stops, how much does large format film has?
Portra has significantly more than that.

Add in movements, flexibility of sheet film and general advantages of shooting analogue and you e got yourself a shit load of good reasons why people shoot LF.
>>
>>3402171
>24mp are more than most people need

Right, most people. But the people using LF aren't the average shooter. Pro landscape photographers make enormous prints. I went to a gallery last weekend where the artist had these amazing immense landscapes that went floor to ceiling, wall to wall. For something like that you need large format.
>>
>>3402153
Hi Ken
>>
>>3403389
Id wager most people using large format dont make huge prints. And that that, is also an exception.
>>
>>3403368
>Dynamic range
Digital is better in this area.

Portra does not hold up as well. They are measuring the extremes of dynamic range on tests. The problem with this is a lot of the dynamic range on negative film is coming from the toe and the shoulder, where tones are so compressed together they are only barely distinguishable as separate tones.

Where as digital is basically straight line.

You need to compare the straight line portion to digital.

Part of the shoulder can be useful in skies and clouds if you dont mind low contrast in situations like backlit portraits with no fill light and exposing for the face.

The straight line (the useful portion) is generally going to be about 6-7 stops.
>>
File: Portra 160.jpg (88 KB, 746x715)
88 KB
88 KB JPG
>>3403701
Portra doesn't even show a shoulder on the spec sheet, and the linear portion is a solid 10 stops. The foot is another 3 stops, and presuming the shoulder is another 3, that's 16 stops of DR.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerAdam Wilson
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3402137
How many frames per second does it go?
>>
>>3402324
You don’t know anything about silicon chip manufacturing. T. EE.
>>
>>3403715
Try comparing it in reality.
>>
>>3403734
ok

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/
>>
>>3403762
>Underexposed: tones just fucking disappear in thin air and grain
>Overexposed: colour disappears, some tonal separation disappears into low contrast, and masked with a nasty grain, as well as its so fucking bad then is freash developer flow marks between sprocket holes
>base exposure: Looks decent, smooth tonal transitions

Imagine. My. Shock.
>>
>>3403775
>Additionally, make low contrast image to minimise flaws
>>
>>3403734
In reality, I vastly prefer film for its highlight rendition. Even if you completely blow it out, it looks natural. Even Velvia which has like 6 stops of DR looks nice when you blow out parts of the sky. You never just get an ugly flat clip unless you’re properly overexposing.

If I wanted to shoot images which looked good on a spreadsheet (like so many people seem to nowadays) of course I’d use digital. It’s an individual aesthetic choice.
>>
>>3403015
>if you’re using a large format lens that’s not crazy wide

The widest lenses for LF top out at ~120 degrees diagonal, you can get that on small format as well. Although I guess you can always try to go wider with a pinhole if you like vignetting.
>>
File: n.jpg (123 KB, 1010x1280)
123 KB
123 KB JPG
This

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZixDTrQdzo
>>
>>3403701
>The straight line (the useful portion)
This is a totally wrong assumption though.
A straight line is really undesirable in printing, you'd barely be able to print 4-5 stops (worse than a slide) if you printing a "straight line" instead of an s-curve.

A straight line is good for editing, because it retains better contrast and gives you more *options* about what will end up in the print.
But even steep-curve films, are gonna be *further* compressed a good amount when printing, to fit in the paper's limited dynamic range.

Also, if it's about S-shape curves, Portra is not a good example in large format. Since every sheet is developed separately, you can overexpose a B&W sheet 4-5 stops and pull an equal amount during dev, to fit a super contrasty scene (16-18 stops) into the negative's DR. *That* is a pronounced s-curve.
>>
>>3403059
Fuck you for assuming my intentions with the thread you asshole. I just made it out of curiosity, not as part of your boogeyman campaign of trying to divide photographers. One of the real problems with P is that anons who post a lot here get institutionalized, and only see threads as basically attacks against them.
>>
>>3402950
Look, you have lines in the scene. Now the lines have to be either scaled down to a 35mm imaging area or a 8x10 imaging area. Of course the lines will be less distorted on a large imaging area, and the geometry of things in the image will be more truthful to the original scene. A 10 m x 10 m object fitted completely into the frame will be less distorted on a large imaging area.

I dont know why some asshole here keeps trying to deny this.
>>
>>3404422
>I dont know why some asshole here keeps trying to deny this.
First off, it’s more than one asshole.

Second, I can’t speak for the other asshole(s), but I’m denying that because it’s just straight up not true.

The perspective distortion—ie, the geometry of things in the image—is based on camera to subject distance, which tends to be determined in practice by your focal length and format size, but if you’re using a normal lens on 4x5 (~160mm) or a normal lens on 35mm (~43mm), you’re going to get the same perspective—ie “geometry of things in the image”.

Like, consider the implications of the argument you’re making. If it were based on format size, the distortion of something like a point & shoot digital camera with a 1/3” sensor would be so immense that the photos would be unrecognizable as something meant to show reality.
>>
>it’s this argument again
Goddamn I swear we have this on a weekly basis. Can we just sticky this one so every time some idiot comes in thinking larger formats magically transform the laws of geometry we can point them elsewhere?
>>
>>3404422
Makes perfect sense. All those photons trying to fit through a small hole are just going to start crashing into each other and flying all over the place. With a bigger hole they can line up nicely and not distort the image by landing in the wrong place.
>>
threadly reminder anyone thinking larger formats dont have an impact on perspective are baby dicked sensorlets.
>>
>>3404642
I think the other guy’s truly wrong about this. I think you’re just a troll.
>>
File: 1grwr4.jpg (48 KB, 500x500)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>3404642
Shut up! The size doesn't matter its how you use it. My MFT is just as capable
>>
>>3402137
>Does anything on the market come even close?
No.

LF sheer size carries effects that you can't afford on smaller sizes, even if you pair for resolution etc. For if the resolution is the same, the sum of the pixels are smaller, so each area catches less information than it would on a larger format. Much like drums scanners are the gold standard (despite being the first commercially established scanners) for scanning even though you have Fuji flatbeds and Hasselblad flextights at same resolution (drum scans use apple-sized sensors for each pixel, instead of CCDs, CMOs etc).

Despite the tonal gradation achieved by the large format being noticeable (as softer and more natural contrast than otherwise, being really life-like not picture-like, especially on really large format direct prints such as 11x14), this is an usually overlooked matter when comparing technical qualities, because, when the push comes to shove, you have to get bigger sensors/film. That's why commercial pros will use MF cameras (digital or analog), and that same degree of upgrade is perceived when moving from MF to LF.

For anyone interest on this matter, there's some threads of LFPF regarding technical issues, indeed a book just on this but I'm not able to recall the name of its author atm.
>>
>>3403368
>That’s not how films works, why would you even make this post if you know nothing about the subject?
to troll, obviously
>>
File: Drum Scanner PMTs.jpg (85 KB, 1024x682)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>3405044
Pic related, each tube is 1 PMT of a drum scanner, that is, it produces 1 pixel.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1024
Image Height682
>>
>>3403368
>Portra has significantly more than that.
Portra is about a 12 stop film. To get much more than that you have to specially process certain B&W films. Most B&W films and color print films were about 10 stops, and slide film was 6-8.
>>
>>3403715
Portra's truly usable DR is from -2.5 to 1.0. 10^3.5 = 3,612. That's actually about 11.6 stops (2^11.6 = 3,104).

If we count the entire line we've got 10^4 = 10,000 which is roughly equal to 2^13.3. In the film days you might have gotten away with saying Portra was a 13.3 stop film, but when comparing to digital that flat portion of the curve is useless. A modern FF sensor with on chip ADCs will deliver 13.5-14.8 stops, depending on sensor, and ALL of it will have usable detail.
>>
>>3404569
well to be fair instagram selfies shot on 1/3" sensors ARE unrecognizable as something meant to show reality
>>
>>3405213
Okay but not because of perspective. :-P



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.