plasticman Posted December 23, 2014 Share #61 Posted December 23, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) When the M8 came out back in 2006, there was a thread claiming that a 30x40 inch print from the 10mp 1.3X crop M8 was comparable to scanned 4x5 film ...http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html This post gives a more realistic (and balanced) comparison: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/120381-imacon-flextight-1-a.html#post1279770 Anyway, you seem pretty convinced about your choice of medium. I use both film and digital for different purposes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 23, 2014 Posted December 23, 2014 Hi plasticman, Take a look here Film Vs Digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
zlatkob Posted December 24, 2014 Share #62 Posted December 24, 2014 This post gives a more realistic (and balanced) comparison: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/120381-imacon-flextight-1-a.html#post1279770 Anyway, you seem pretty convinced about your choice of medium. I use both film and digital for different purposes. That link shows the M9 crop at 300% (and is "heavily biased against the M9" as the post says) — that represents a heck of a large print. The scanned film is shown at 100%. I've mentioned several times that I believe 4x5 film has an advantage over digital for very large prints. It's great that you use both. By the way, I don't understand your signature: "Film is Fleet Foxes, digital is Justin Bieber." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 28, 2014 Share #63 Posted December 28, 2014 By the way, I don't understand your signature: "Film is Fleet Foxes, digital is Justin Bieber." Listen to and learn of Fleet Foxes here, if you like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted December 28, 2014 Author Share #64 Posted December 28, 2014 Pete - they forgot to compare drone shots. The animal kingdom has made its thoughts quite clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFWUlObSgn0 Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 28, 2014 Share #65 Posted December 28, 2014 When the M8 came out back in 2006, there was a thread claiming that a 30x40 inch print from the 10mp 1.3X crop M8 was comparable to scanned 4x5 film ...http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html It's worth noting that the OP of that ancient thread is recognised as one of the best printers in the US It would be interesting to hear his thoughts 8 years on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted December 28, 2014 Share #66 Posted December 28, 2014 If one must use 4x5 film to make better prints than 24mm x 36mm digital, why not compare with 4x5 digital? Better Light Large Format Digital Photography - The World's Finest Digital Camera System Stephen Johnson did the comparison (I'm pretty sure he was using 8x10 film at the time) and he switched to the better light scanning back immediately. Digital Landscape Nature Photographs and Fine Art Prints by Stephen Johnson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted December 28, 2014 Share #67 Posted December 28, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Stephen Johnson did the comparison (I'm pretty sure he was using 8x10 film at the time) and he switched to the better light scanning back immediately. Well good for him. Not every landscape photographer can get away with long exposure times (usually running into minutes) and/or wants to carry a laptop with them out into the field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted December 28, 2014 Share #68 Posted December 28, 2014 I spent a lot of my employers time hauling a Sinar 5x4 around with 4 lenses and two dozen DDS, never mind an 8x10. Thats why I chose to use a Leica M for my own amusement. Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted December 28, 2014 Share #69 Posted December 28, 2014 If one must use 4x5 film to make better prints than 24mm x 36mm digital, why not compare with 4x5 digital? Better Light Large Format Digital Photography - The World's Finest Digital Camera System Thanks for posting this Doug, I didn't know such backs exist. That would be a more relevant comparison in a test environment. Being scanning backs, though, their practical application is somewhat limited (even though Better Light has some interesting examples of when the backs are used for moving objects). Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 29, 2014 Share #70 Posted December 29, 2014 I think if you are going to go to all the trouble to use a scan back, you might consider shooting multiple images on 35mm and stitching. I use a pano head but have also had good results doing this handheld using Autopano in the right situations. (Nothing too close to the camera.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted December 29, 2014 Share #71 Posted December 29, 2014 Well good for him. Not every landscape photographer can get away with long exposure times (usually running into minutes) and/or wants to carry a laptop with them out into the field. We certainly have become accustomed to our conveniences. Real photographers carry their own glass plates, solutions & dark tent. The wimps among us use a mule to carry that stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted December 30, 2014 Share #72 Posted December 30, 2014 I can't believe this is even discussed anymore.... The best reason to use film over digital is getting away from a digital workflow, living a different life than most as a photographer. That is why it is silly to care about pixel peeping metrics when it is the vision and emotional context that makes the finished photograph what it is.....and if you love the process of film more than digital, then that is why those photos will be better, not the technical garbage. Film and the darkroom just blows the doors off of digital for me, no techno-nerd is going to ever come up with a valid reason to change that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 31, 2014 Share #73 Posted December 31, 2014 Interesting Best wishes for the New Year Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 17, 2015 Share #74 Posted January 17, 2015 The way the Press worked in the days of film is only inconvenient in retrospect. I also remember the 'wire man' who's only job was to wrap a print around a drum and press 'send', followed by another cigarette and cup of tea. This was when the industry was highly unionised and everybody had a job. In the broadcast industry a lighting technician couldn't plug in their own lights on a set, it needed an electrician to do that. This type of practice was the only inconvenience, everything else seemed like 'modern times' and the news was reported. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.