Bill Pierce
Well-known
Digital has increased in quality to the point that small digital cameras, full frame, even APS C, can exceed the quality of 35mm film cameras. Perhaps because of this, I have seen more and more film photographers turning to medium and large formats. In theory some of the many megapixel large sensors can outperform 8x10 inch sheet film. In practice, it’s not a significant difference. And the hidden advantage of large format sheet film is that if you want to scan it and inkjet print it rather than using a wet darkroom, you can get by with a relatively inexpensive scanner. I’m about as digital as you can get, but I still keep that 8x10 view camera (sometimes with a 4x5 reducing back on it) and a wet darkroom. Truth is, black and white sheet film and some trays is a very affordable alternative to a many, many megapixel medium format digital camera. Your experience? Your thoughts?
Jockos
Well-known
What is this APS-C sensor you're talking about, that exceeds Copex Rapid?
mdarnton
Well-known
I'm thinking about this very thing recently.
For the last year I've been shooting 8x10, scanning on a $175 HP G4050, and ignoring my 35mm stuff. Just a week or two ago I pulled out my Leicas and fired them up, and I think I may have to switch from Tri-X to TMax 400 if I'm going to continue--the grain and sharpness of Tri-X don't seem to be keeping me happy now. My digital camera is pretty nice, but I'm still not considering going back to it.
Even more enticing, a sheet of 8x10 xray film costs 40 cents! That's like 1975 film pricing. For that money, I can shoot a whole lot of film.
For the last year I've been shooting 8x10, scanning on a $175 HP G4050, and ignoring my 35mm stuff. Just a week or two ago I pulled out my Leicas and fired them up, and I think I may have to switch from Tri-X to TMax 400 if I'm going to continue--the grain and sharpness of Tri-X don't seem to be keeping me happy now. My digital camera is pretty nice, but I'm still not considering going back to it.
Even more enticing, a sheet of 8x10 xray film costs 40 cents! That's like 1975 film pricing. For that money, I can shoot a whole lot of film.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Another film bashing thread?
All of these talks about sharpness, resolution, dynamic range and else are gear and trades talk. It is irrelevant to the art.
It is same as someone will stay in front of oil panting and complain what it is not sharp at 100% crop.
All of these talks about sharpness, resolution, dynamic range and else are gear and trades talk. It is irrelevant to the art.
It is same as someone will stay in front of oil panting and complain what it is not sharp at 100% crop.
Merlijn53
Established
Could you define quality?
Personally I have quite a few reasons to choose film (35 and mf) over digital, but untill now quality is not one of them. All I know is that I have never been enthousiastic about my digital pictures (my fault, I know), now I'm happy back to film. So what is that quality that I'm obviously missing?
Frank
mani
Well-known
EXACTLY THIS!!!! Thanks.
JChrome
Street Worker
When folks get really serious about printing, 8x10 contact printing comes up because of the resolution capabilities. I have some friends (met through RFF) here in NYC that are thinking about it, but have yet to pull the trigger on the 8x10.
I dream of 8x10. Not because of printing but because of the draw of the image and the tonality. I'd be happy just to scan it
I dream of 8x10. Not because of printing but because of the draw of the image and the tonality. I'd be happy just to scan it
mdarnton
Well-known
What I'm finding with 8x10 is that my whole process changes so much that I'm getting a whole different kind of picture.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There are lots of false purists about. Everything comes down to the look you want. I quite like 56x72mm (Linhof's 6x7cm nominal) enlarged 3x to whole plate: 168 x 216mm. Use Delta 100 and it looks like a contact print for sharpness and tonality. But I also like 8x10 inch (with a 21 inch uncoated lens) for portraiture, 12x15 inch for views, 5x7 inch for interiors -- and my M9 for travel. Or a Nikon F with a 200/3 Vivitar Series 1 and orange filter on HP5 Plus for dramatic B+W.
"Look" is far more important than "quality", and even harder to define.
Cheers,
R.
"Look" is far more important than "quality", and even harder to define.
Cheers,
R.
I'm pretty sure if you re-read the OP's post, you will find this isn't the case at all. As someone with his own section here at RFF, BP tends to pose questions to get conversations started. If anything, people who have replied have gotten offended when there was no need to be offended.
Merlijn53
Established
Well,if the op is only trying to get conversations started, there is no reason to "defend" him
.Just let reactions come, offended or not. That's the intention.
Frank
Scapevision
Well-known
Don't forget there's more than just megapickles and sharpness. 35mm (be it digital or not) just can't replicate the rendition of larger format negative.
Mike Fish
Mike in Sacramento
Timmyjoe
Veteran
For me it comes down to process. There's lots of ways to record the light reflecting from a particular scene.
Using larger format B&W film is a process that I really enjoy because it's more manual dexterity and tactile intense, it brings back fond memories of when I started in photography in the 1970's, and the film/paper/chemicals gives me the experience of creating an image, one step at a time. And there's no beating the tonal gradations you can get in larger format B&W film.
Is digital better or worse, I really couldn't care less. I shoot larger format film because I love the process.
Just my 2¢ worth.
Using larger format B&W film is a process that I really enjoy because it's more manual dexterity and tactile intense, it brings back fond memories of when I started in photography in the 1970's, and the film/paper/chemicals gives me the experience of creating an image, one step at a time. And there's no beating the tonal gradations you can get in larger format B&W film.
Is digital better or worse, I really couldn't care less. I shoot larger format film because I love the process.
Just my 2¢ worth.
harpofreely
Well-known
I'm not sure that there is anything new in the phenomenon - MF & LF has always been all but universally been acknowledged as having the edge in IQ over 35mm. I think the trend Bill sees is not only due to the increase in digital IQ but also the ever-falling price of good MF & LF gear - it is now fully practical for photographers of very modest means to enjoy both high quality, convenient digital gear and the pleasures of shooting film at it's best, in MF or LF. I love being able to do both, as the situation (or whim) demands.
I'm fully in the camp that Bill references - I've all but abandoned 35mm for 6x6 & 6x7 since moving my digital shooting from Canon DSRL to Fuji X-E1, speed booster, and legacy lenses. Its still fun to pull 10 or 12 big negs out of the can and wet-print a few 11x14s, whereas 36 little frames to scan, evaluate, and print (wet or dry) feels like work, esp. as I am rarely satisfied with the quality of 35mm enlarged over 5x7. And even 645 is vastly more forgiving than 35mm on a cheap scanner.
Without being too panglossian about it, the truth is that most of us, shooting for pleasure, currently enjoy a time in photographic history with unprecedented opportunity for affordably enjoying as many of the myriad aspects of the art and science as we like. For me, when that means film, I choose big film.
I'm fully in the camp that Bill references - I've all but abandoned 35mm for 6x6 & 6x7 since moving my digital shooting from Canon DSRL to Fuji X-E1, speed booster, and legacy lenses. Its still fun to pull 10 or 12 big negs out of the can and wet-print a few 11x14s, whereas 36 little frames to scan, evaluate, and print (wet or dry) feels like work, esp. as I am rarely satisfied with the quality of 35mm enlarged over 5x7. And even 645 is vastly more forgiving than 35mm on a cheap scanner.
Without being too panglossian about it, the truth is that most of us, shooting for pleasure, currently enjoy a time in photographic history with unprecedented opportunity for affordably enjoying as many of the myriad aspects of the art and science as we like. For me, when that means film, I choose big film.
It really comes down to this (no matter what one chooses to use).
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Where is exactly the same difference with digital FF and 135 film. The rendering.
I came back to 135 film from digital FF. I just looked at color negative scan and the difference was very obvious to me. It appears to be closer to paintings, which I consider as art.
Before this I went from digital cropper to FF first, because where is the difference, similar as 135 and LF. It isn't just tonal rendering and light gathering differences between 135 and LF. Most pronounced difference is in how subject in focus is placed and appearing in the perspective.
This is the one of reasons why those who compete on the photography modern market (commercial photogs) might choose MF and LF. Because it looks different and it helps to compete most. While "quality" is next to irrelevant.
I came back to 135 film from digital FF. I just looked at color negative scan and the difference was very obvious to me. It appears to be closer to paintings, which I consider as art.
Before this I went from digital cropper to FF first, because where is the difference, similar as 135 and LF. It isn't just tonal rendering and light gathering differences between 135 and LF. Most pronounced difference is in how subject in focus is placed and appearing in the perspective.
This is the one of reasons why those who compete on the photography modern market (commercial photogs) might choose MF and LF. Because it looks different and it helps to compete most. While "quality" is next to irrelevant.
Jan Pedersen
Well-known
Over the last year i have sold all of my large format gear.
8x10 and 5x7 with more than 30 lenses, Jobo processors and everything needed to make beauftiful prints from a large negative.
The tonal scale from an 8x10 sheet of film will take a very gifted craftman to replicate from a digital camera if even possible.
There are so many advantages to a view camera but there are also some disadvantages and it was the disadvantage that in the end made me deside to sell.
The time it takes to set up and make an exposure is not a problem if there is nothing moving in the scene to be recorded so for landscape and arcitecture it is near perfect.
I tend to like images that have more life in them and documentary is really what i have always found more captivating to look at.
The less staged and the more impulsive reaction to a scene is difficult to capture with a view camera and with the rapid advance in digital technology i now find that i can get what i need from a digital file.
Prints from an inkjet printer is still not at least for me the same as a real silver chloride or silver gelatin print but the computer have a huge advantage when it comes to less than a perfect negative that needs work.
With a digital printed negative is is also possible to make larger alternative process prints such as Platinum Paladium prints.
All these considerations eventually was enough for me to say that i no longer had any need or desire to use large format cameras.
8x10 and 5x7 with more than 30 lenses, Jobo processors and everything needed to make beauftiful prints from a large negative.
The tonal scale from an 8x10 sheet of film will take a very gifted craftman to replicate from a digital camera if even possible.
There are so many advantages to a view camera but there are also some disadvantages and it was the disadvantage that in the end made me deside to sell.
The time it takes to set up and make an exposure is not a problem if there is nothing moving in the scene to be recorded so for landscape and arcitecture it is near perfect.
I tend to like images that have more life in them and documentary is really what i have always found more captivating to look at.
The less staged and the more impulsive reaction to a scene is difficult to capture with a view camera and with the rapid advance in digital technology i now find that i can get what i need from a digital file.
Prints from an inkjet printer is still not at least for me the same as a real silver chloride or silver gelatin print but the computer have a huge advantage when it comes to less than a perfect negative that needs work.
With a digital printed negative is is also possible to make larger alternative process prints such as Platinum Paladium prints.
All these considerations eventually was enough for me to say that i no longer had any need or desire to use large format cameras.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If I had an 8x10 camera, I'd immediately get some Impossible Project 8x10 film and go shooting.
Now how much are we talking for the camera ... ?
G
Now how much are we talking for the camera ... ?
G
danielsterno
making soup from mud
For me, its the perfection of imperfection- the more MP's that digital camera output, the more sterile digital seems to get the more I yearn for organic imperfections in the image, I seem to achieve that more frequently, from a fine art stand point with 35mm film….. though I too would like to add a medium format to my tools…...