M8 vs. 4x5" View Camera?

[Philinflash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How did the 4x5 transparency look before it was scanned?

 

Pretty reasonable, actually. Maybe the lab who scanned it was the weak link. But I'm not going back and asking for a re-scan. Finished.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mitchell]

Simon,

 

We all have different sources of hilarity, but your post was the one that amused me here.

 

Phillip was recounting something that actually happened with practical consequences. Not launching the next abstract argument for you to get your blood up.

 

Sometimes it's useful to compare ways getting to Chicago. Does the greater speed of the plane actually pay off after airport traffic, and putting yourself at the mercy of someone else in charge? Some times it a lot easier and faster to take the car.

 

Mitchell

[ChrisC]

.... I did not intend to start a shooting war......

 

Philip - I see no evidence of warfare in this thread. I do see the usual Forum standard of patient, informed responses from photographers with wide ranging experience giving their alternative interpretations to your purchased 5x4/scan experience than the proposition contained in the title you chose for this thread.

 

Fruit analogies seem popular so I'll stay in that mode. You saw a comparison between an M8 and a 5x4 View Camera, some experienced photographers were gently suggesting the comparison was closer to one between [for example] an old, stale, squashed banana, and a fresh, ripe, grape.

 

People are generous here. Post a thread in the form of a question and you get a range of answers. Receiving an answer you had not considered is not a 'shooting war'; it's free education.

 

....................Chris

[AlanG]

Pretty reasonable, actually. Maybe the lab who scanned it was the weak link. But I'm not going back and asking for a re-scan. Finished.

 

OK so maybe the photographer did a good job and you had a poor scan. Considering you were only after an 8x10 print, I don't see why you felt you needed 4x5 in the first place. It is no surprise to me that the M8 would be adequate.

 

Let's look at the output requirements for an 8x10 inkjet print - typically 240 dpi is needed.

 

So that is 8x240x10x240x3 (RGB) = 13+ megabyte RGB 8 bit tiff. If you figure on 300 dpi then you need about a 21 meg final file. So there is a limit to how much detail you can expect to see in a print this size, and I don't know how much detail was in the original painting. (Or how much detail you were trying to show - every brush mark, crack, etc.)

 

When photographing artwork, there is more to it than resolution. The lighting is very important - expecially choosing no polarization, single polarization, or double polarization. Broad or narrow source lights will make a big difference too. It just depends on what you are trying to show of the original artwork. When it comes to film, different brands and types of film will have different reproduction characterisitics. For instance, I used to shoot high end custom carpets and found that that my usual film would not reproduce certain greens that were often used. I tested various films and found another film that worked better for carpets that had green in them.

 

And then you have to make a scan that shows every color as well as possible. So you need to have the artwork available to the scan operator so he/she can try to scan to match the artwork, not just to match the original film. All in all it probably is a lot easier to shoot a digital iimage with any 35mm camera, bring the raw file up on the monitor and adjust it to match the original.