plasticman Posted December 22, 2014 Share #41 Posted December 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Wait, not many types of 4x5 exist anymore. Anyway, to return to the discussion, skin tones were meant as a generic example of what goes wrong with interpolated color resolution, not to get into a debate about which particular digital camera does a better or worse job. In any case, whichever that may be, none comes close to Portra in rendering skin in the most natural way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 22, 2014 Posted December 22, 2014 Hi plasticman, Take a look here Film Vs Digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Doc Henry Posted December 22, 2014 Share #42 Posted December 22, 2014 That has not been my experience using the DMR. I've also been willing to print the DMR files at much larger sizes than drum-scaned film photos for comparable print quality. I fail to understand why this topic keeps coming up. Insecurity? Use what you like and don't worry about what the next guy is using. Doug, thanks for your reply , I hope we all speak the same thing here , ie the fidelity of the image through a support (sensor or film) as fidelity sound when listening through an amplification system (tube amplifier or transistor) post n°7 of this thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m7-mp-film-m/345620-i-love-my-m7.html The DMR gives an image that is very close to the film, probably CCD sensor with fewer pixels as the M8, but mostly true color , a good point for the DMR Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 22, 2014 Share #43 Posted December 22, 2014 Wait, not many types of 4x5 exist anymore. HP5 FP4 Delta 100 Ilford Ortho T-Max 100 T-Max 400 Tri-X Adox CHS 100 Adox CMS 20 Fomapan 100 Fomapan 200 Fuji 160NS Fujichrome Velvia 100 Fuji Provia 100F Kodak Ektar Kodak Portra 160 Kodak Portra 400 I've probably missed a couple, some of the Eastern European films come and go in batches, but those above are 4x5 film you can buy today, right now. And many of these are also available in other sheet film sizes as well if you want to try half-plate or 8x10, 5x7 maybe, or even 16x20. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 22, 2014 Share #44 Posted December 22, 2014 I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. My scanner doesn't eat my negatives, and any digital edit of a scan can serve as a road-map for an manual analog print. To me, it is in a way the best of both worlds. I'm not sure either, as this suggests to me that your end print comes from an analog workflow. In which case we agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted December 22, 2014 Share #45 Posted December 22, 2014 I've probably missed a couple, some of the Eastern European films come and go in batches, but those above are 4x5 film you can buy today, right now. And many of these are also available in other sheet film sizes as well if you want to try half-plate or 8x10, 5x7 maybe, or even 16x20. Everything that still exists in 35mm, still exists in 4x5 except for film that you could never get in 4x5 in the first place (e.g., Delta 3200 or Portra 800, etc..) I personally don't see a shortage of 4x5 materials anywhere other than what's been discontinued universally across all formats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted December 22, 2014 Share #46 Posted December 22, 2014 HP5 (...) ...snipped your film list for brevity... I've probably missed a couple, some of the Eastern European films come and go in batches, but those above are 4x5 film you can buy today, right now. And many of these are also available in other sheet film sizes as well if you want to try half-plate or 8x10, 5x7 maybe, or even 16x20. Steve That should take one quite far. The only points, where the list is (getting) thin is for slide films and tungsten films. For slide film it is a shame, museums should keep some slides to show coming generations the sensation of a good slide on a light box or a properly done and projected MF slide. Tungsten films, I have not missed much. Colour balancing is certainly done more easily in the digital work flow. I just took digital pictures at the christmas party of our sports club, where life music was played by some of us and the illumination of the stage was, well, colourful. The pictures look psychedelic, whichever way I tweaked them. I finally preserved the skin tones, whereever possible and left the rest, where it was. For proper colour balance, I see two options - either bring your own light sources with controlled spectrum or live with a compromise between different wild fluorescent and LED spectra. The shift between Tungsten and daylight is the smallest issue, which is easily resolved in Lightroom. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 22, 2014 Share #47 Posted December 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) HP5FP4 Delta 100 Ilford Ortho T-Max 100 T-Max 400 Tri-X Adox CHS 100 Adox CMS 20 Fomapan 100 Fomapan 200 Fuji 160NS Fujichrome Velvia 100 Fuji Provia 100F Kodak Ektar Kodak Portra 160 Kodak Portra 400 I've probably missed a couple, some of the Eastern European films come and go in batches, but those above are 4x5 film you can buy today, right now. And many of these are also available in other sheet film sizes as well if you want to try half-plate or 8x10, 5x7 maybe, or even 16x20. Steve I didn't think we were talking about b/w here. That is pretty much a personal artistic choice now. I rarely shot b/w 4x5 commercially. There are two transparency films so if you don't like the look of them you better adjust them in post. I don't believe you can wet print directly from any transparency film today. (No more Ilfochrome or type R.) There is no tungsten film of any type. No more Reala that was the best film for mixed lights. (But I had to have transparencies made from it since that's what magazines and clients required mostly.) Only 100 speed transparency and no Velvia 50. I can see that quality scanning of 4x5 negs would work nicely but never did much of that with my scanners. But then you are back to a digital workflow that has to compete with something that is much faster, cheaper, and easier to accomplish with a digital camera. So unless there is such a great superiority to that choice for a particular application, it will not be chosen by many. When I shot 4x5 most of my clients did not want scans larger than around 40 megabytes. So it became pretty pointless to keep working that way. I can remember back to when my cousin's wedding was shot with a 4x5 Speed Graphic but I bet few work that way today. And as I said. Once Readiload and Quickload disappeared, carrying a quantity of 4x5 became impractical for commercial work due to the bulk, time required for loading and unloading (plus labeling) I still have those holders and some view camera lenses and stuff. I held onto my Technikardan 45S and 13 lenses for as long as I could... eventually only shooting 120 with it. I loved using 4x5 but times forced me to change. I'm only providing some explanations of why use has declined so much... especially in commercial applications. So both the hassle of using 4x5 and the limited choices available are working against it now. Apparently while some still want to use it and prefer it for whatever reasons, plenty have found their needs are met by other choices. Comparing 35mm digital to 4x5 is pretty interesting but these tests are limited in scope. Doesn't this show how far along 35mm digital has come? Are many planning to park their Leicas and use 4x5 due to its superior quality? Hasn't 4x5 always had some technical superiority to smaller formats? Maybe do 100+ shots with both cameras under a wide variety of circumstances and subjects, post online samples of all of them and make 11x14 prints. Then do some double blind studies and find what more people prefer. (This is similar to how Kodak used to tweak new film emulsions.) Unless the opinions are overwhelmingly favorable for 4x5 film, it will be obvious why fewer people choose to use it anymore except for artistic expression and high resolution applications. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted December 22, 2014 Share #48 Posted December 22, 2014 Alan, make your own choices, but don't tell lies and try to give false impressions that could affect other people's means of expression. Anybody randomly reading your comment and believing it may get the idea 4x5 is difficult to do just at the point they were looking for a new experience. That is mean spirited, a point made just to exaggerate your own experience and consequent move to digital. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 22, 2014 Share #49 Posted December 22, 2014 Alan, make your own choices, but don't tell lies and try to give false impressions that could affect other people's means of expression. Anybody randomly reading your comment and believing it may get the idea 4x5 is difficult to do just at the point they were looking for a new experience. That is mean spirited, a point made just to exaggerate your own experience and consequent move to digital. Steve Well it's a great time to buy 4x5 gear and get into it cheaply because most pros have stopped using it. How easy it is to shoot 4x5??? Well it can be very easy or very difficult depending on what you are trying to accomplish and what your standards are. But my post had nothing to do with encouraging or discouraging anyone from using 4x5 and I don't see how the linked article had anything to do with that. If you are new at 4x5 and want to shoot color film and scan it to consistently get better results than with a good DSLR, you'll have to put some effort into it. Clearly we all know that great photos can be made with any camera. So the choice of what to use mostly comes down to personal preference, technical requirements, cost, and convenience. As a commercial architectural shooter who felt he had fairly well mastered large format interior and exterior work, I probably would have been better off if digital had never been invented and I had less competition from those unwilling to put in the effort that I put in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 22, 2014 Share #50 Posted December 22, 2014 Andre D. Wagner photographer shoot film Andre D. Wagner, Photographer on Vimeo and with "an old Leica 30 years old" (translation) http://www.pariszigzag.fr/visite-insolite-paris/paris-noir-et-blanc-leica "Today the majority of pictures are retouched in Paris, filtered, "instagram-ized" excessive and thus lose some of their charm. Photographer Yann Vernerie made the choice to shoot with a Leica M6 dating from 1986. The result is worth a look and charm of Paris naked in terms of its contrasts sharply with 35mm the current trend". Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 22, 2014 Share #51 Posted December 22, 2014 Andre D. Wagner photographer shoot film Andre D. Wagner, Photographer on Vimeo Thanks Henry for that great link. As we've now become accustomed, this thread was sinking into the usual negative repetition of the same tired anti-film litany - you saved it with a reminder of how much positive energy a person can have, who commits themselves to their medium of choice and creativity. Inspiring! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 22, 2014 Share #52 Posted December 22, 2014 Thanks Henry for that great link. As we've now become accustomed, this thread was sinking into the usual negative repetition of the same tired anti-film litany - you saved it with a reminder of how much positive energy a person can have, who commits themselves to their medium of choice and creativity. Inspiring! You are welcome ! I now leave my 2 digital M in my Billingham bag and I go out only with my 2 M7 (one with color film and one with b&w film) , I am tired of seeing synthesized images, corrected for color , brief not faithful A true "allergy" ! .... soon the M-A will also be with me Best Henry Look at these pictures with a "soul" http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread-118.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 22, 2014 Share #53 Posted December 22, 2014 you saved it with a reminder of how much positive energy a person can have, who commits themselves to their medium of choice and creativity. Inspiring! I am tired of seeing synthesized images, corrected for color , brief not faithful A true "allergy" ! Saved it…but then took it away, with the same negative energy, only directed at digital. Why can't folks just like whatever they like, without the pejorative terms? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted December 22, 2014 Share #54 Posted December 22, 2014 There is no tungsten film of any type. Alan - If by saying "of any type" you mean any format, you overlooked Cinestill 800, which is a tungsten film. I would, however, second your point that analog printing of slide film no longer exists (at least in NYC, which I am sure about). As you are a commercial photographer, I do sympathize with you regarding the practicality of using any kind of large format film. I think that this point has a place in the discussion. Having said this, very few of us are commercial photographers, and there are many commercial photographers who will have a parallel film photography workflow (at least for peronsal usage) b/c they love it so much and acknowledge the certain of its superior characteristics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted December 22, 2014 Share #55 Posted December 22, 2014 Once Readiload and Quickload disappeared, carrying a quantity of 4x5 became impractical for commercial work due to the bulk, time required for loading and unloading (plus labeling) ..... So both the hassle of using 4x5 and the limited choices available are working against it now. Apparently while some still want to use it and prefer it for whatever reasons, plenty have found their needs are met by other choices. .... Comparing 35mm digital to 4x5 is pretty interesting but these tests are limited in scope. I think the above is all very sensible. I'm a mere amateur, but I ditched 4x5 -- almost entirely because Quickloads disappeared. Shipping some Quickload "envelopes" with the negative safely stored inside was easy and fairly liberating (as far as 4x5 can be), what with no issues of dust or having to load film oneself. I enormously miss front rise/fall movements on the 4x5. And the "look" of an image from 4x5 and the ability to drum scan to 350mb to achieve a 60x50 print that is barely sweating (i.e., looks entirely "natural" .... but with rich detail) are huge plus points. But you're also right re: other choices ..... the cleanness of digital and its lack of grain are attributes that oddly enough make a file from an M240 (or Monochrom in particular) look more similar to 4x5 than they do from 35mm film (and to a lesser extent from medium format film). I'd also be lying if, in terms of "apparent " detail, that i can see a HUGE difference between the above mentioned 350mb scan from 4x5 and a M240 file of the same scene when printed on a high end Lambda printer to 50" on the widest side ....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted December 22, 2014 Share #56 Posted December 22, 2014 Doug, thanks for your reply , I hope we all speak the same thing here , ie the fidelity of the image through a support (sensor or film) as fidelity sound when listening through an amplification system (tube amplifier or transistor) post n°7 of this thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m7-mp-film-m/345620-i-love-my-m7.html The DMR gives an image that is very close to the film, probably CCD sensor with fewer pixels as the M8, but mostly true color , a good point for the DMR Best Henry But WHICH film does it look like, this always make me scratch my head, there are and always have been big differences between films in the way they render a scene. When I started with slide films I tried a few, Agfa CT18 had the reputation of the most accurate repro of colours, the shop I worked in sold lots of it for medical use. But it looked dull on the screen. I settled for Kodachrome in spite of it being much slower, it looked much better on the screen, 'give me the nice right colours'. A few months ago I made the mistake of photographing the same scene on the D7000 and with the M6ttl with Provia 100. The colours recorded differently, particularly a bougainvillea, but which was 'correct'? I couldn't remember! Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted December 23, 2014 Share #57 Posted December 23, 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 23, 2014 Share #58 Posted December 23, 2014 Btw, a characteristic of most tungsten films, whether chrome or neg, was better long exposure characteristics than using daylight film. I can't say I have knowledge of reciprocity curves for current color films but wonder if they will work well for long exposures under a variety of lights that are typically used in buildings... filtered or corrected in scanning. As for color accuracy of film, some Ektachromes were made to do well with fabrics and others with skin tones. At one time I found that Kodak Lumiere did a much better job reproducing some colors from custom carpets than other Ektachromes did. Fujichrome did better on rich woods. Fuji neg got the reds right in one interior at the expense of the greens. While Kodak neg did the opposite. I put a lot of effort into testing film and carried several notebooks of these tests when on assignment to use as guides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 23, 2014 Share #59 Posted December 23, 2014 Saved it…but then took it away, with the same negative energy, only directed at digital. Why can't folks just like whatever they like, without the pejorative terms? Jeff Jeff nothing pejorative , just an assessment of 5 years digital M Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 23, 2014 Share #60 Posted December 23, 2014 But WHICH film does it look like, this always make me scratch my head, there are and always have been big differences between films in the way they render a scene.When I started with slide films I tried a few, Agfa CT18 had the reputation of the most accurate repro of colours, the shop I worked in sold lots of it for medical use. But it looked dull on the screen. I settled for Kodachrome in spite of it being much slower, it looked much better on the screen, 'give me the nice right colours'. A few months ago I made the mistake of photographing the same scene on the D7000 and with the M6ttl with Provia 100. The colours recorded differently, particularly a bougainvillea, but which was 'correct'? I couldn't remember! Gerry Hi Gerry,few brands film that can replace the Kodachrome (stopped) in my opinion for color Kodak Portra, Fuji Provia etc ... but it is certain that the color of Kodachrome is inimitable (different process). Development of film is also important , giving to experienced laboratories . I develop on paper in my lab Center Leica , I've known for 40 years and the film I develop myself (C41) .... without dust problem or cracking on sensor or out of stock Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.