Philinflash Posted March 27, 2007 Share #1 Posted March 27, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am getting a bit fed up reading peoples' whinges on the 3/4-sized image capture size of the M8. I recently had to have a reproduction-quality image of a 20"x25" oil painting. I hired a pro who specializes in doing just that and let him rip. He shot 5 4"x5" transparencies, selected the "best" one and had it subjected to a hi-res drum scan that produced an 8"x10" 400 dpi, 30 Mbyte file. That should have been good enough, right? Wrong; it was horrible. No matter what we tried to do in PhotoShop, we could not extract a decent image. The information just wasn't there. The curves were shallow and short. So, with nothing to lose, I shot it with my M8. I shot in tungsten light, pushed the ISO, pulled the EV, notched the white balance down to 3600 Kelvin, experimented with the color settings and, at the end of the day, produced a very satisfying 300 dpi image (9 Mbyte file). Size isn't everything. Signed, Happy Camper Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 27, 2007 Posted March 27, 2007 Hi Philinflash, Take a look here M8 vs. 4x5" View Camera?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted March 27, 2007 Share #2 Posted March 27, 2007 I know it's a big negative, but 400 dpi doesn't sound very high to me given that my 35mm Nikon scanner scans at 4000 dpi. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share #3 Posted March 27, 2007 Not only was 400 dpi big enough for my printer, 300 dpi was well good enough, too. In fact, overall, the M8 file was much more usable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frc Posted March 27, 2007 Share #4 Posted March 27, 2007 Question: Does this person know how to do his job? Quite recently I've done some reproductions of paintings using a Mamiya 4.5 x 6 cm and the resolution of the Provia 100 slides was outstanding. This kind of jobs is far from a routine-job for me, I hadn't done it before but the results were good enough to use for a A1 size poster. How good the M8 is at it, I have no clue but 4 x 5 should really do the job. Astonished by your story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 27, 2007 Share #5 Posted March 27, 2007 Maybe Phillip is a fisherman? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannirr Posted March 27, 2007 Share #6 Posted March 27, 2007 Most museums, collectors, auction houses etc photograph artwork with a 4x5 camera and a digital scanning back - usually from BetterLight. I have one of them, and it is terrific - the control and tonality is better than anything I have seen from anything else - including the M8. Downside - very cumbersome to use in the field. Danni Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
audidudi Posted March 27, 2007 Share #7 Posted March 27, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...subjected to a hi-res drum scan that produced an 8"x10" 400 dpi, 30 Mbyte file. That should have been good enough, right? That's actually a fairly small file for a 4x5 scan (my 8x10 scans are typically in the 600MB range -- one per CD, which makes filing easy! -- and a similar size 4x5 scan would be one-fourth that or approx. 150MB). I know many people swear by scanning 1:1 at print resolution but I've always had better results scanning at a multiple of print resolution and then downsizing as necessary afterwards. (Of course, when I shoot large pieces of film, I'm not doing so to make 8x10 prints, so I rarely find myself in this situation...) Was it 8-bit or 16-bit? This can make a big difference as well, especially if you're trying to recover detail from shadow areas or making serious color balance adjustments. Lastly, not all drum-scanner operators are created equal ... as with most things photographic, getting the most information off of a piece of film is more an art than a science and experience matters as much or more than the equipment being used. The same is true for the photographer who exposed the film ... shooting artwork is much more difficult than it looks, as I learned after I was offered what appeared to be a lucrative job shooting a dozen pieces of artwork for a mixed-media painter. It turned out to be a nightmare and I quickly realized I was way out of my element ... fortunately, the artist understood and after I refunded her money, I was only out $120 for film, processing, and equipment rental. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 27, 2007 Share #8 Posted March 27, 2007 Philip, 30 meg is _not_ high res for a 4x5 negative. I get files several times that size when scanning 35mm in colour using the Nikon. What you should have done is scanned at 16 bits per channel and the highest possible resolution, made the adjustments on this file , and then downsized if necessary before printing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted March 27, 2007 Share #9 Posted March 27, 2007 Philip, Not to take anything away from the M8, or your skill, but it's simply no match for a properly shot and scanned 4x5 transparency. It sounds like the job was botched. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share #10 Posted March 27, 2007 Question: Astonished by your story. I was astonished by the result, too. In a sense, it is an "apples to oranges" comparison. I do not see a 4x5 digital scanning back in my future but I would certainly expect it to out-perform an M8 or other handy-sized digital camera. My goal was not to produce the largest possible file: it was to capture a reproducable image. I was just amazed at how well the M8 did it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted March 27, 2007 Share #11 Posted March 27, 2007 Maybe Phillip is a fisherman? LOL, the surreal strikes back. Seriously, this guy f*cked up. There is no way that a 4x5" slide, properly done, doesn't deliver a satisfying image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbegibson Posted March 27, 2007 Share #12 Posted March 27, 2007 Was the lighting the same for both shots? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share #13 Posted March 27, 2007 Was the lighting the same for both shots? No. Is it ever? If anything, the lighting was "better" in the 4x5 situation. I don't know what the 4x5 guy did wrong, but he won't be asked back. I brought in a well-recommended specialist for the job but it didn't work out. If I weren't such a softie, I would ask for my money back. Otherwise, I guess this is just too incredible for the RUF to take on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted March 27, 2007 Share #14 Posted March 27, 2007 ....I guess this is just too incredible for the RUF to take on. Philip - The story is only too believable with regard to possible photographer and/or scanning incompetence. Photographing artwork can get difficult, and I have known some truly awful commercial Imacon and drum scans. Where the credibility gap could be is your inferred comparison between the capabilities of 5x4 versus M8. Where I live I could probably guarantee that anyone shooting sheet film would be using outdated stock that had been going off in the bottom of their fridge. No photographer I know of can still find clients who will pay them to shoot sheet film, more's the pity. ......................Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 28, 2007 Share #15 Posted March 28, 2007 How did the 4x5 transparency look before it was scanned? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted March 28, 2007 Share #16 Posted March 28, 2007 Aye, a high-res drum scan of a 4x5 would have produced a huge file, with all the detail that could reasonably be expected to be extracted from such a situation. Either the photographer screwed up big time when taking the shots or else the scanning was botched. From the fact that a 400dpi, 30mb image was produced, I'd strongly think the latter. Why the heck would one go to all the trouble of using a 4x5, only to scan at the level of a 10-year old consumer-grade flatbed scanner?! No question the M8 does stunning work. But to suggest that it whips large format is quite a stretch! ;-) Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adi sudarsono Posted March 28, 2007 Share #17 Posted March 28, 2007 If I understand correctly, the 35 mm film invention was never meant to equal the quality of the larger frames. If the difference is small then that is the genius of Leica, but the difference is there. That the M8 can produce beautiful A1 prints and beyond already says something about the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englander Posted March 28, 2007 Share #18 Posted March 28, 2007 Where the incompetence lies, you have to decide. 400 dpi is not a high res scan from any format even if it done on a scanner that is called hi res. The fact that it matches or exceeds the 300 dpi you print with is basically irrelevant. Even the M8 exceeds that requirement (8x10 at 300 dpi) without interpolation as do almost every serious digital camera on the market. That the miniscule sensor of the M8 produces a file that is just less than 8x10 at 400 dpi (9.79x6.585) gives you an idea of how much information was wasted by scanning the 4x5 at a such a ridiculously low res. Having reduced the large format to a format essentially only a little larger than the M8, you really cannot say that you are examining the performance of a 4x5, rather you are examining the performance of something around the size of 35mm. Tying a performer’s hands behind his back and then saying that a man with his hands free is a better juggler, well, you get the point. Joe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 28, 2007 Share #19 Posted March 28, 2007 It never ceases to amaze me how these hilarious threads pop up again and again, again and again ... Folks, you should always remember ... when compare stuff like these, you don't mix apples and oranges. 4x5 film should be compared to 35mm film. M8 should be compared to a 4x5 scanning back. Got it? LOL These are different mediums ... when you try to figure out which goes faster, you don't compare your car to a F-16, anybody disagree? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share #20 Posted March 28, 2007 Where the credibility gap could be is your inferred comparison between the capabilities of 5x4 versus M8. Where I live I could probably guarantee that anyone shooting sheet film would be using outdated stock that had been going off in the bottom of their fridge. No photographer I know of can still find clients who will pay them to shoot sheet film, more's the pity. ......................Chris The whole point of my starting the thread was the counter-intuitiveness of the results and as a little pat on the back of the boys and girls at Leica (I like my M8). This was just reporting a personal ancedote; I did not intend to start a shooting war. The "where" for all of this was Manhattan, probably the last place 4x5 transparency film will be found outside of Rochester. I knew the photog was going to be using sheet film when I hired him. The pity is that the results did not stand up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.