Um, Large Format? Advice please.

[Ben Rubinstein]

I love my Canon 5D. I really do. It shoots weddings as well as landscape and gives me a huge amount of resolution while being a SLR and all the convenience that is included.

Thing is though that although the 5D will give me a perfect 18X12" @ 250DPI, for landscape work (portrait can go as big as I like) where there is endless detail that needs to be resolved, any uprezzing just serves to show the lack of fine detail. Now for some landscapes it isn't a problem, I keep that in mind when shooting, the image below is a great example of an image that makes a beautiful 20X10" due to all the detail necessary being resolved.

http://www.bphotography.co.uk/fineart/pics/arnisdale.jpg

However, IMO, for large prints, and I mean large, (40X50" at a very minimum) the detail just doesn't hold up. When you are selling prints that size, as I intend to, for people to hang in their homes, then 'viewing distance' just doesn't apply, people are looking at the print from right in front of it, not 2 meters back.

I want to shoot working on a specific genre of photo for sale as Fine Art prints to tourists and for exhibition. I want to shoot B&W (only) and print large. Large enough and with enough detail that you could almost 'walk into the picture', that you could stare at it time and time again seeing the smallest details.

I used to shoot 645 and top scans from the latest imacon at the highest resolution show me that it has about a 1.5 megapixel advantage over my 5D. No doubt 6X7 would be more so, however I'm looking for something a lot more than that, the 'wow' factor perhaps.

I've never been a snob about equipment or particularly married to any means to an end in photography. I have a concept in my head of what I want the end product to be and I'll use the appropriate tool to get there. Does it look like I'm barking up the LF tree?

Many Thanks.

[Asher Kelman]

Well Nicolas prints that large and larger with files from his 1DsII.

I have a 1DII and a 5D but now am looking a LF for detail-rich scenics and interiors.

So I have been working with Will Thompson. He's shoots 8x10 on a Calumet C1 with Polaroid B&W or Color film. I'm returning to 4x5 with my Crown Graffic with a 130mm and a 203mm lens.

I may end up with an 8x10 too. I don't need many images, just very good ones. My idea is to use the Eos camera as a lightmeter, check with a 4x5 film on a 4x5 reducing back then pop in my color 8x10 Polaroid or Portra and Bob's your uncle.

I really can't afford what Id like a 39MP digital back. That, anyway will be outdated. The film camera is inexpensive, but bulky and needs film that needs processing. If one does not require thousands of shots, film seems to be a great option for detail rich work.

Anyway, that is where I'm heading.

Asher

[Ben Rubinstein]

It's as you say Asher, I'll be working in B&W in a semi urban enviroment shooting a lot of semi architectural scenery. The scene won't move any more than it has in the past hundreds of years and the light is pretty much the same year in year out. I don't need to bracket hundreds of shots or wait for the perfect colour of lighting. What I do need is so much detail that you could almost walk into the picture.

I've been working these scenes at night until now for a 'different feel' but now I want them in B&W and big. Very big. And with every blade of grass and texture in the foliage and stone resolved, not a mush in the distance.

http://www.bphotography.co.uk/fineart/pics/MigdalDavid.jpg

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'll be working in B&W in a semi urban enviroment shooting a lot of semi architectural scenery. The scene won't move any more than it has in the past hundreds of years and the light is pretty much the same year in year out. I don't need to bracket hundreds of shots or wait for the perfect colour of lighting. What I do need is so much detail that you could almost walk into the picture.

Sounds like the perfect scenario for stitching, to me. You can choose a focal length that gives you the desired output PPI for the viewing distance. Normal or moderately tele focal lengths gives very much detail. Full image size and aspect ratio are only limited by the final size of the output, you just keep adding partial images till the scene is covered.

A tool like PTAssembler (http://www.tawbaware.com/ptasmblr.htm) is made by a photographer, specifically with large output in mind (rather than 360 degree VR). Photoshop CS3 may turn out to be a good tool as well, but I have no experience yet how well CS3 handles gigapixel images.

Bart

[Will Thompson]

Does it look like I'm barking up the LF tree?

Hi Ben, You might just be right.

Can you post an example of the type of composition and crop and I will try to shoot one with My 1DsmkII for you to try out to see if at best processing it will do for what you need. I think it might. If You were printing B&W, Sepia, or other monochrome type I would say not a problem but color is another thing completely.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Hi Will,

I have a 5D and have worked with a 1Ds mkII. Yes you can print big with certain types of composition and subject. I've found that you cannot invent detail that is not there and with highly detailed landscapes with lots of small details uprezzing just doesn't compensate for the mushed or simply empty 'space' around pixel level.

Take for example this picture. Shot with a 5D and the new 70-200 f4L on a MF3 with manfrotto MG head and RRS QR system. MLU and cable release of course. Focus on the wall at f16. Shot in RAW, sharpened carefully with PK.

http://www.bphotography.co.uk/fineart/pics/kotelrain.jpg

The image is incredibly sharp, huge amounts of detail. But I had to rez it up slightly for print and looking close up to the print you can see that there are areas of wall that just don't show detail. At native resolution the print shows all the detail that the eye could want. Once you rez it up the detail just isn't there, the eye wants more when looking closely.

Of course you will say that we don't look at prints with our eyeball touching the picture and you are correct. From a meter back the print looks incredible. But large prints hung for display are not viewed at 'correct viewing distances'. Not by a large stretch. I'm looking for prints a full meter in width at a minimum that can stand up to close scrutiny for resolution and details. I'm sorry but I just cannot accept that any 35mm DLSR can come close to that with detailed landscapes from a lot of experience with working and printing with the files.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Bart, I thought about stitching. How well does stitching work with architecture in the shots, is it easy to stitch in 2 directions rather than just in panoramic, can you work fast enough to gave even lighting across the frame when the light is changing, etc, etc? I am interested in it but to be honest from all I've read and seen, LF looked easy and relaxed in comparison!

I think that for my needs flat stitching would be the only real answer, with architecture and my experience with PT in general you will be working very very hard to normalise a large amount of frames when you have rotated the camera. The distortion might just be too much or necessitate a silly amount of overlap to ensure only the middle of the frame is used and the resulting horrible amount of frames needed.

[Will Thompson]

Ben, I was speaking of a portrait on the mantle type of shot you had mentioned. I believe this type of shot can be made to have the appearance of detail with the 1DsmkII and DPP SW without a doubt in monochrome and very likely in color.

I would like to try My Voodoo on a 1DsmkII RAW file to see if I could meet your detail requirments.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, I thought about stitching. How well does stitching work with architecture in the shots, is it easy to stitch in 2 directions rather than just in panoramic, can you work fast enough to gave even lighting across the frame when the light is changing, etc, etc? I am interested in it but to be honest from all I've read and seen, LF looked easy and relaxed in comparison!

Ben, stitching is just one of several approaches possible, but one worth mentioning. With more recent software (e.g. automatic control-point generation and automatic blending) components, stitching is getting to be a serious contender versus LF, IMHO. It is not the end all cure all solution and it requires/offers a different workflow, and there are some issues around moving subjects.

To specifically answer some of your questions;
- Architecture, which is one of my fields of interest, is easy to do in a stitching approach. The software allows to e.g. de-skew the image composite AND remove lens distortion at the same time. It also allows 'crowd control' i.e. removal of people/cars etc. by shooting with a more generous overlap.
- Multi-row stitching is not more difficult* than single row, it just produces larger files. It does help, as always, to prepare by getting the nodal/entry-pupil (the point of rotation) as correct as possible, especially if you include foreground elements. On distant structures you can even shoot handheld and get perfect results, and the use of longer focus lenses allows to get huge amounts of detail, especially if you cannot physically get close enough to even see the detail by eye.
- Lighting/exposure differences between images over time are more of an issue than with a single shot, but blending components in the software can easily compensate for relatively modest differences in exposure, and are getting better at bridging larger differences. If the fluctuations are rapid and large (would also be challenging to correctly expose a single shot), you can choose a larger overlap (e.g. 50%) between images.
- Etc., etc. Well it'll get easier with practice http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif .

* The use of a good 3D pivot tool as camera support does help a lot. I recently switched from my heavy Manfrotto unit to the much more portable and flexible RRS Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot (http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/pano/index.html) package. It's a bit of an investment, but also a delight to work with, especially if you do a lot of stitching, and it allows to work quite fast.

I think that for my needs flat stitching would be the only real answer, with architecture and my experience with PT in general you will be working very very hard to normalise a large amount of frames when you have rotated the camera. The distortion might just be too much or necessitate a silly amount of overlap to ensure only the middle of the frame is used and the resulting horrible amount of frames needed.

Yes, I almost exclusively shoot in 'rectilinear' projection mode. That means that you'll get exactly the same type of enlongation/projection distortion at the edges as a single flat field lens with large FOV would. If you restrict the composite angle of view to normal angles, that won't be any issue. Even if you choose an extreme FOV, when printed large, and viewed from up-close from the perspective point, it looks natural. You are flexible in choosing your perspective by selecting the viewpoint with your feet (as usual), and your angle of view by stitching more images (instead of using a wider-angle lens). In post processing it is also easy to either fully correct for keystoning, or only partially, and you can change till it's exactly as you like.

With a non-Tilt lens you can even simulate infinite DOF by shooting more images with a narrower FOV lens, and adjust focus for each sub-image. The software can automatically correct for the resulting differences in magnification that follow from the different focus positions of the lens.

This is perhaps a nice report (http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics/index.html) from a relative newbie in stitching his first landscape, and comparing that to his prior MO of lugging of his LF gear through the rocky mountains (which poses some other constraints compared to most architecture). While he is an experienced photographer, his first attempts at stitching were easier than he anticipated with moving grass and clouds and exposure fluctuations and focus variation. In comparison, architecture is easy ...

Bart

[Ben Rubinstein]

Gosh but it still sounds complicated! Especially with the DOF issues, etc, etc.

Can I ask a really stupid first stiching question?

I had a look at all the pano gear on the RRS website. Seems to me that the vast majority of the rails mean that your camera will not be sitting on the center of gravity of the tripod. It's hard enough getting sharp exposures as it is with a solid tripod and a good head, seems madness to me to then mount the camera 'hanging in mid air' when you have moved the camera on the rail to obtain the correct nodal positioning.

Of course there are many many more questions to come though!

[Ben Rubinstein]

Just did a quick test with a 5D file. To get a 50X30" I would need 8 files in two layers (4 each) at a very bare minimum and I still only get 230 DPI. Then of course I need the processing power to deal with it given that I usually bracket and combine to maximise the DR. Looks like I would have to stitch both sets of file, light and dark, and then layer them. Ouch!

But will it give me more resolution, or enough advantages at that size over LF. I know LF is not easy and no childs game, but heck it looks simpler than this!

[Erik DeBill]

But will it give me more resolution, or enough advantages at that size over LF. I know LF is not easy and no childs game, but heck it looks simpler than this!

It's actually not hard at all, especially if you have a DSLR with zoom handy to test exposure. 4x5 film holds up very nicely at 2400dpi - you're still getting detail, not just grain. Even 4800 dpi (limit of my scanner) seems to be eeking a little more detail out. At that resolution you should have plenty of pixels to make your 40x50 prints (2400dpi is just shy of it - but scanner pixels seem a little better than camera pixels, since there's no interpolation). The trick is to avoid stopping down so much that diffraction loses too much resolution. IIRC, f22 is where effects are supposed to start showing on a 2400dpi scan.

I'm shying away from it myself because of the amount of work post-exposure, but it sounds like you're in for even more than that with all that stitching. You can save on the post exposure work by having someone else develop the film. I haven't tried paying for scans (too expensive for a hobbyist like me), but that MIGHT cut the other work (which is a combination of scanning and dust spotting the scan).

If your main worry is the complexity of actually taking the pictures, you'll be pleasantly surprised. You have to figure your exposure, but other than that it's only as complex as you want it to be.

[Ben Rubinstein]

I would buy a simple scanner to view the images then send the keepers for scanning on an imacon 868 so as to work the file for print.

Getting some idea about it now, for flat stitching how do you do two layers?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Gosh but it still sounds complicated! Especially with the DOF issues, etc, etc.

Can I ask a really stupid first stiching question?

While I'm reluctant to post stitching solutions in this LF forum, it is my feeling that adult behaviour would/should also allow the consideration of alternatives. That being said, there are of course no stupid questions, only unnecessary ones (and stupid answers http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif).

I had a look at all the pano gear on the RRS website. Seems to me that the vast majority of the rails mean that your camera will not be sitting on the center of gravity of the tripod. It's hard enough getting sharp exposures as it is with a solid tripod and a good head, seems madness to me to then mount the camera 'hanging in mid air' when you have moved the camera on the rail to obtain the correct nodal positioning.

There you go, the first sensible question has already been flung back at my suggestion ..., and I like it.

To answer the question, you are quite right about the center of gravity being moved away from the center of rotation, it's an unavoidable requirement for reducing fore/background parallax between shots. However, the RRS (or Manfrotto or other solid solutions for that matter) solution has/acquires both some mass and, maybe more important, vibration absorbing properties (obviously depending on the camera/lens mass) derived from the tripod underneath. That's one of the reasons I have recently also chosen for a Carbon Fiber tripod, with better vibration absorbing properties than many materials (except perhaps wood), and with a lower weight for mobile use. In practice (with a 1DsMk2 and a variety of lenses) I have found it to be not a real problem (already with a heavy Alu tripod).

Of course there are many many more questions to come though!

I'm happy you are open-minded enough to consider alternatives to LF.

Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Just did a quick test with a 5D file. To get a 50X30" I would need 8 files in two layers (4 each) at a very bare minimum and I still only get 230 DPI. Then of course I need the processing power to deal with it given that I usually bracket and combine to maximise the DR. Looks like I would have to stitch both sets of file, light and dark, and then layer them. Ouch!

Okay, let's address the concerns. Is 230 PPI enough for your almost nose-to-print viewing of large output? I'd wager it is and if it isn't, just add some more Focal length and images. Memory is relatively cheap. In fact, I just did several 7-exposure per partial HDR stitching image captures of an interesting church, the exterior of which posed several additional challenges.
I'll try and post an example of that, probably in a separate thread.

But will it give me more resolution, or enough advantages at that size over LF. I know LF is not easy and no childs game, but heck it looks simpler than this!

Only you can answer whether it is enough, or if it's simpler in the end. I'd suggest you try it, and a free progam like 'Hugin (http://hugin.sourceforge.net/)' will already offer a lot of functionality without the need to invest much up-front (although some investment will ultimately pay-off). Experience only evolves with trying.

Bart

[Ray West]

Hi Ben,
Why not, as a quick and dirty comparison, look here, http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2615
and ask Asher and Will to post a 100% crop, of a similar area perhaps the ballast area.

The software trial is free, and a few hand held grab shots of a building near you may give a good idea of the capabilities of stitching, and handheld, for architecture.

Best wishes,

Ray

[Ben Rubinstein]

That's an interesting point Ray, I wonder if anyone is really bored and feels like shooting a comparison between LF and stitching (of a scene with architecture in it) to the same file size (big enough for a 50X40 ish) and show the methodology used for the stitching shot.

As far as flat stitching is concerned I hadnt realised the cost of TS lenses, hell I could get a new LF field camera and lens for that amount!

Thanks a lot Bart for your time, would be very interested in your image as it would parallel exactly what I would be trying to do.

[Asher Kelman]

That's an interesting point Ray, I wonder if anyone is really bored and feels like shooting a comparison between LF and stitching (of a scene with architecture in it) to the same file size (big enough for a 50X40 ish) and show the methodology used for the stitching shot.

As far as flat stitching is concerned I hadnt realised the cost of TS lenses, hell I could get a new LF field camera and lens for that amount!

Thanks a lot Bart for your time, would be very interested in your image as it would parallel exactly what I would be trying to do.

Hi Ben,

I believe one can approach the same end result with any of these approaches. The special thing about LF photography is its simplicty and dealing with information with less mathematical passes.

All one needs is a lens of sufficent image circle for the f stop you need. If the lens has no geometric defects then architecture is dependant on one's own skill.

For 39M Backs, the same thing, one just needs the right lenses.

For stitching, the workflow can be longer depending on whether or not extra work is needed to deal with imperfect junctions due to color, contrast, texture defects due to geometric changes coming from X,Y or Z axis rotations.

If one stitches in one direction only and with one row fast and in stable light, then the methodolgy will be likely be fine for many applications. The more rows one needs, the greater the risk of geometric distortions on stitching.

Asher

[Ben Rubinstein]

Well I would be needing at least 2 rows to match the output.

I went onto B&H and RRS to do some pricing...

A 45mm TS lens will cost ~$1090 and I can use my present system.
A RRS multi level panning system costs ~$800. I would also need a computer upgrade to handle that much stitching.
A new Tachihara LF camera with new Rodenstok 150mm lens, holders and board, etc will cost ~$1295 and would be cheaper if I sourced the lens 2nd hand.

[Asher Kelman]

The Techihara is a great camera. I think you would be very happy. It is one that will give you the results you want every time.

Also it is professional and you can arrive at any job or clients set up with that and your digital cameeras and feel first class.

If one only has 4 needed shots of a building, you shoot maybe 12 and digital as backup.

I think you'd be happy depending on your numbers. BTW a 5x7 camera with a 6x17 Canham back back (totally automatic!) for $1100 is attractive.

http://www.canhamcameras.com/R617.jpe

It does weigh 2lb and fits especially well Canhams 5x7 cameras and the Walker indestructable polymer camera here (http://www.walkercameras.com/index.html).

These I know are for sure double the price but still much cheaper than any digital back! Just requires the matching work philosophy.

So back to the Tachihara. Yes that's a bargain.

Asher

[Ben Rubinstein]

For those who regularly shoot LF, I've been trying to teach myself the 'world' of LF but am coming up with some questions. The value of tilt seems not to be of use with the kind of 'alleyway' photography that I will be doing (see www.bphotography.co.uk/fineart/fineart.htm for more examples in the 'Old City Jerusalem' section, all distortion correction was PS based!). Seems to me that working with so much vertical foreground kinda makes tilt redundant. Any thoughts and will I be stuck with using WA lenses only to get enough DOF without too much diffraction?

Looking at a couple of lenses which match the focal lengths I'd been using for that kind of shooting, namely the 90mm and 210mm (~30 & 70mm, not too wide for distortion at one end and just long enough for some compression at the other) would I be getting enough image circle for those shots to rise and tilt/swing or am I going to be running short? A monorail and super expensive lenses are out of the question.

Many thanks

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Ben,

What camera did you use for the Jerusalm work previously?

I really love the Mamiya 7II for that sort of work. Nothing to my knowledge beats the resolution and quality of these lenses. Phenominal!

I like the the pictures you took of the wall from below, did you correct the images in PS?

Asher

[Ben Rubinstein]

That was mainly a Canon 10D actually which is what I was shooting in the beginning of 2005, I changed to the 1Ds in time for the Iceland trip but then went for the 5D almost as soon as it came out as shooting weddings with the 1Ds was very difficult, everything had to be absolutely perfect! There is PS perspective correction on several of the shots though only the middle of the trio needed any serious correction as I don't mind standing back to improve the tilts by using a longer lens.

The Western Wall in the rain was on the 26th of Dec 2006, just a couple of months back with a 5D, It is almost exactly as it was out of the camera apart from straightening the horizon and a bit of dodging and burning on masks after coverting to B&W. That is what I love about the 5D, you have to do so much less to the file out of the RAW converter than the 1Ds ever needed.
I was out there looking for an apartment as we are moving back there in December of this year which is when my 3 big projects kick off in between flying back to the UK to shoot weddings. It is almost exactly as it was out of the camera apart from straightening the horizon and a bit of dodging and burning on masks after coverting to B&W. That is what I love about the 5D, you have to do so much less to the file out of the RAW converter than the 1Ds ever needed.

One project is documenting Jerusalem and specifically the old style Jerusalem for two books that I will be working on with a friend who is involved with book/script writing for some interesting projects being tossed around in Hollywood at present about a film based on the 'shtetl' (ghetto) life and yiddish culture pre 2nd world war.

The 2nd project is shooting touristy type scenes for printing large on canvas and selling through tourist channels, the 5D will be plenty for this as the canvas is stupidly forgiving, I also want to put this work up for stock.

The 3rd is to shoot B&W in big, documenting the iconic images of Jerusalem in a way that you could walk into the image and be there. The pictures will not necessarily be the 'iconic' of the tourist trade, but a new look on so much that becomes 'normal' after walking the streets for even a few days. That is what I'm looking at the large format for and it will hopefully be exhibited and sold here in the UK, no one in Israel has houses big enough!

[Erik DeBill]

Looking at a couple of lenses which match the focal lengths I'd been using for that kind of shooting, namely the 90mm and 210mm (~30 & 70mm, not too wide for distortion at one end and just long enough for some compression at the other) would I be getting enough image circle for those shots to rise and tilt/swing or am I going to be running short? A monorail and super expensive lenses are out of the question.

Many thanks

I have a Tachihara and 90, 135 and 210mm lenses. I've got plenty of movements on all 3, without using recessed lensboards. I can't use the movements to the full extent of the camera on the 90mm, but that's because I have an antique 90mm lens with only limited coverage. With a more modern lens I'd be fine.

Also, realize that movement limitations on wide angle lenses tend to go away when you focus in closer than infinity (the closest your lens gets to the film plane). If you focus in a little closer you get a lot more breathing room. I used to use a monorail that had no room for movements on the 90mm when focused at infinity and this made a big difference. The Tachihara should be able to work even a 75mm just fine at infinity.

On the other hand, a 90mm is a 90mm, and whether it's wide angle or telephoto (like on an APS-C sensor) you get the same depth of field for your f-stop. The good news is that you can actually view what the depth of field will be right on the ground glass by stopping down and checking it out. You know what you're going to get, unlike an SLR where the viewfinder is so tiny.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Thanks Erik, would you mind having a look at those photos and telling me whether tilt would be of any use at all? Trying to work out if I'm letting myself in for some serious DOF problems because the buildings in the foreground won't allow tilt or so I understand.

[Erik DeBill]

Thanks Erik, would you mind having a look at those photos and telling me whether tilt would be of any use at all? Trying to work out if I'm letting myself in for some serious DOF problems because the buildings in the foreground won't allow tilt or so I understand.


Tilt, swing, etc will be tradeoffs. You'll have to pick which parts to make sharp, or stop down a bit. In your night shot of the castle, tilts could make the rear tower and foreground grass very sharp regardless of aperture. The hedge back under the trees might be out of focus. Or you could put the plane of focus parallel to the wall on the right, so the trees in the upper left would go soft.

It looks like you're rather far away from the tower - at 90mm, hyperfocal distance is somewhere between 30 and 120 feet at f/22 (depending on print size). A lot of these seem like you're that far away, so depth of field wouldn't be an issue at all. The same with your picture of the person in front of the wall, especially if some of those reflections out at the very lower edge of the picture can go a little soft.

For reference, this picture was taken with a Tachihara and 90mm lens at f16. The back edge of the large rock in the foreground was 10-15 feet away, and the closest part at the lower left of the image is out of focus (probably 6-8 feet from the lens). Softness in upper right is actually blown highlights on the slide film I was using. The same shot with black and white film captures detail in those areas perfectly (but oddly, I like the effect of the conversion better than the "native" black and white).

http://www.solarphage.net/images/063-rock_and_pool-pad.jpg

[Klaus Esser]

"I really can't afford what Id like a 39MP digital back. That, anyway will be outdated. The film camera is inexpensive, but bulky and needs film that needs processing. If one does not require thousands of shots, film seems to be a great option for detail rich work."

This is an interesting point: as a longtime LF-User with 8x10" and 4x5" i can´t see a REAL advantage in a 39MPx back - especially with it´s cost in mind.
I´d like to show a direct comparing from a job i did last year - a 39MPx and an 8x10", both landscapes - how can i do that?

best, Klaus

P.S.:
the 8x10" is here:
www.klausesser.de/Template2.htm
the 39MPx is here:
www.klausesser.de/Template.htm
here is a 6x17cm:
www.klausesser.de/Stadt.htm

the 8x10" and the 6x17cm are drum-scanned withh 2000dpi

[Ben Rubinstein]

Bloody hell but the resolution of that 8X10" just goes on and on, just mind blowing. Probably far more information still in there at higher scan resolutions, the detail on the leaves certainly looks like there is more to come.

It's interesting how obvious it is at enlargement whether the resolution has given all it has to give or whether there is more detail there. That 8X10" looks like it could go on forever. The digital back has fantastic detail but at enlargement you can start seeing the smearing of fine detail which shows that the picture has given you all it has to give. Film grain actually hides the smearing which can be so apparent in fine detail with digital and makes it far less ugly. Even if leaves turn into clumps of grain, it looks better than smear!

[Ben Rubinstein]

If I can ask you further as I try to understand and learn, what movements did you use to ensure that much DOF in the 8X10" shot? Would tilt not screw up the focus on the bush?

[Klaus Esser]

If I can ask you further as I try to understand and learn, what movements did you use to ensure that much DOF in the 8X10" shot? Would tilt not screw up the focus on the bush?

Hi Ben!

Yes - i could have done it sharp all over. But in my opinion it should be even more blurred in the foreground - gives more deep-effect . .

One of the advantages in this shot is that i have done it very early in the morning - so the air was cleaner as it is normally over the day.
It was a 240mm Symmar in a Linhof on Fuji Velvia - i used a polarisation-filter.

best, Klaus

[Ron Morse]

The detail in those shots is fantastic.

[Ray West]

Hi Ben,

The link to the tno labs image no longer works, but if you never saw this, then you missed out. Image made in 2004, took a few days and a few pc's to stitch it. bbc report here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4022149.stm

(the other links are interesting, shows what could be done by hand back then.)

Best wishes,

Ray.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The link to the tno labs image no longer works, but if you never saw this, then you missed out.

The link to the image: http://triton.tpd.tno.nl/gigazoom/Delft2.htm (http://triton.tpd.tno.nl/gigazoom/Delft2.htm)

Bart

[Ray West]

Hi Bart,

Thanks for posting the image link. There used to be a page or two buy the guys who made the image, but I guess its so old its not considered high tech. enough ;-).

Best wishes,

Ray

[Ben Rubinstein]

I saw the gigapixel thingy back then, thing is that the 8X10" image gives so much detail and that was one shot on film! Just look at the detail in the leaves in the far distance, i just can't get over how much detail there is!

[Klaus Esser]

Ben, Ray, Bart, Asher - did you know this:
http://www.gigapxl.org/
Some guys modified an air-reconnaissance-camera, built a very special lens . . . . and what comes up is a camera/film/scan-resolution which is unbelievable!

best, Klaus

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Ben, Ray, Bart, Asher - did you know this:
http://www.gigapxl.org/
Some guys modified an air-reconnaissance-camera, built a very special lens . . . . and what comes up is a camera/film/scan-resolution which is unbelievable!

Hi Klaus,

Yes, I knew of that site but thanks for sharing the link for those who didn't.

Talking about large images with lots of detail, you might know this link (http://haltadefinizione.deagostini.it/), AFAIK the largest image to date (8.6 Giga-pixel).

Bart

[Klaus Esser]

Hi Klaus,

Yes, I knew of that site but thanks for sharing the link for those who didn't.

Talking about large images with lots of detail, you might know this link (http://haltadefinizione.deagostini.it/), AFAIK the largest image to date (8.6 Giga-pixel).

Bart

Hey Bart!

Yeah - molto importante :-) !

best, Klaus

[Asher Kelman]

Very beautiful reproduction!

You can download it! Just takes 800 screen captures!

Asher

[Ben Rubinstein]

I think I could have found the first subject to try out my equipment on when I do take the plunge...

Taken today in the Lake District, UK. The scene cries out for more resolution than my camera has to give (oh and better composition, I shot this from the road quickly while passing!).

http://www.bphotography.co.uk/bridge.jpg

[Klaus Esser]

[QUOTE=Ben Rubinstein;23450]I think I could have found the first subject to try out my equipment on when I do take the plunge...

Taken today in the Lake District, UK. The scene cries out for more resolution than my camera has to give (oh and better composition, I shot this from the road quickly while passing!).

Hi Ben!

The Lake District resides very high on my wish-list . . i saw photographs which a friend of mine took about 20 years ago by travelling arround with busses while carrying his 4x5" Zone-camera and shot wounderful pictures from a dream-like landscape! We don´t have such great views over here!

best, Klaus

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Very beautiful reproduction!

You can download it! Just takes 800 screen captures!

Yeah, that puts kind of a practical limitation (but not unrealisticly so, if short on cash) on those wanting to use the image for their uncrupulous personal monetary benefit.

Bart

[Ben Rubinstein]

You can see some of my other Lake District work on my webpage, www.bphotography.co.uk/fineart/fineart.htm It's not LF type work having been shot on MF and 35mm, my style is not sweeping vistas but rather isolating a feature, anyway, let me know what you think.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

... my style is not sweeping vistas but rather isolating a feature, anyway, let me know what you think.

I agree with your approach, it is very hard to communicate space on a relatively small non-3D print. It is often very rewarding to isolate elements that convey a strong sensation, or an unusual close look, almost an abstraction. Your images show that you've got a good grip on it, with a good feeling for perspective. Lovely images.

Bart

[Ben Rubinstein]

Thank You Bart, I'm looking forward to working with the ability of large prints to explore a different kind of composition.

Well I just pulled the trigger on a new Tachihara 45BR (the chrome and dark wood version, not the tacky gold one) and have a 2nd hand 210mm f5.6 Caltar II N (Rodenstock) on the way from Adorama's Ebay outlet. My 90mm is going to have to wait a bit till I can afford it as there are plenty acessories that I will need to buy as well.

The train is getting ready to leave the station.....

[Klaus Esser]

Thank You Bart, I'm looking forward to working with the ability of large prints to explore a different kind of composition.

Well I just pulled the trigger on a new Tachihara 45BR (the chrome and dark wood version, not the tacky gold one) and have a 2nd hand 210mm f5.6 Caltar II N (Rodenstock) on the way from Adorama's Ebay outlet. My 90mm is going to have to wait a bit till I can afford it as there are plenty acessories that I will need to buy as well.

The train is getting ready to leave the station.....

Hi Ben!

What 90mm do you have in mind? Beautiful shots you did in the Lake District!

best, Klaus

[Ben Rubinstein]

Probably the Super Angulon which I think is the best compromise between weight (not 4.5) and focusing ease with the larger imaging circle than the Grandagon N. I went to a local shop here and the guy took out a LF monorail to demonstrate the difference, I composed the scene and when I was tring to focus he stopped the f5.6 lens down to f8 and said 'that is what you would be dealing with'.

Now I'm trying to deal with finding a loupe, deciding whether or not the spot meter on my DSLR will be good enough (I'll be carrying it anyway), focusing hood and then the extremely annoying question of film and development. Bloody Hell but people seem to make B&W into a black art!

You're actually a good person to ask about this Klaus as I will be scanning the frames for large prints, which iso 100 B&W film would you recommend for scanning that will give me maximum resolution. I realise that contrast is not as important as you want less contrast in a good scan not more as you would want for print. I have a little experience with Ilford Delta 100 (though all I did was shoot the with it, not develop) which was OK but nothing special as far as tonality and grain goes. What would you suggest being a drum scanner yourself?

[Klaus Esser]

"Bloody Hell but people seem to make B&W into a black art!"

Indeed it´s black AND white art . . . :-) ho, ho . .

For B&W i mostly use 100 ASA T-Max. It´s fine grain and good tones. But there maybe better ones - i didn´t explore that indeep, because i prefer to shoot Velvia 50ASA and turn it into B&W in Photoshop.
That takes a bit of mystery away from b&w`s "black art" . . but works perfect and gives a very great range of options.
And gives VERY good prints.
So i don´t visit darkrooms any more - spending years it it is enough dark art :-) (hope, the Dark Lord won´t come after me . . )
Someone in the neighbourhood recently bought this Epson scanner (forgot the type) - wer´e gonna check it out this weekend.
I´ll tell you!

best, Klaus

[Dean Jones]

I would have to say that for the ultimate in DSLR's, the full frame sensor of the 5D is unsurpassed.......it's without a doubt, the best, simply due to sensor size. It rivals most medium format cameras in most circumstances.......however where digital detail falls over when extra large enlargements are needed, 4x5 on the other hand leaves it far behind. Digital certainly has a place, there's no denying it....when I need a big poster blow up of a big poster, I reach for the 5D.
If you want a realistic looking photograph that gets true to life colours, without the overly 'perfect' look of digital, you can't beat 4x5, (I won't begin to mention 8x10!).
How many full frame sensors will fit on a 4x5 sheet?
How many times must an image image from the 35mm frame be enlarged to equal the surface area of 4x5? It's not rocket science: Digital has still a long way to go..........even though it's definitely handy, it still seems to lack that certain 'magic' that LF film offers. I figure it depends on whether you want many good shots, or a few even better ones.
After seeing so many large digital enlargements everyday, I get the idea that standards have slipped, strangely enough though, not too many have noticed...........

[Dean Jones]

Without a doubt my old Howtek brings out shadow detail that's usually lost on a flatbed........however the Epson V700/V750 may rival it? I realise drum scanning or scanning of any kind is slow, but so is waiting for your trannies to arrive back from the lab.

That's something else, we've forgotten to do....anticipate.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Is there anyone else out there who would like to give their input as to B&W iso 100 film for scanning? There is a lot of contrast out there in the middle east so holding sky detail while exposing for the shadows (where I will be standing) will be interesting, seems to me that a film with a less linear response would be better to hold the highlights for a flatter neg for scanning?

Or am I just assuming far too much?

[Klaus Esser]

Without a doubt my old Howtek brings out shadow detail that's usually lost on a flatbed........however the Epson V700/V750 may rival it? I realise drum scanning or scanning of any kind is slow, but so is waiting for your trannies to arrive back from the lab.

That's something else, we've forgotten to do....anticipate.

Hi Dean!

You got a D4000? Me too :-) . What software do you use? I´m using Polaris at the moment - i´ve got it cheap with the dongle - but i will try SilverFast for Howtek these days. It runs on OS X - i just have to buy a Scuzzy card for my G5 Mac.
Having my scanners - the Howtek and a Linotype/Hell Saphir Ultra II flatbed - on the scuzzy-ports of an "old" G3 which is upgraded to G4 is working perfectly . . but . . 2.nd machine and 2.nd Display on the table.

How do you run your Howtek?

best, Klaus

P.S.:
"however the Epson V700/V750 may rival it?"

No - not at all. We gave it a try. But related to the price the Epson is a damn good scanner at a realistic resolution about 1200dpi . . .

[Klaus Esser]

Is there anyone else out there who would like to give their input as to B&W iso 100 film for scanning? There is a lot of contrast out there in the middle east so holding sky detail while exposing for the shadows (where I will be standing) will be interesting, seems to me that a film with a less linear response would be better to hold the highlights for a flatter neg for scanning?

Or am I just assuming far too much?

Hi Ben!

In b&w negative-scanning as well as in every scanning the optimum is a drumscanner. I haven´t tried an Imacon in the last years after buying one about 6 years ago and selling it on in the same week . . .

tomorrow i´ll pick up a 100 T-Max negative and scan it at 2000 and 4000dpi and show it here - ok? I´ll look for a neg. with delicate contrast.
My experiences are, that negative-scanning is very tricky but having set it right it is in my eyes better as a "wet" print of even a very professional b&w lab.
What´s definetely better nevertheless is a platinum-print or something elaborated like that. That is unbeatable - if it´s done by specialists and VERY expensive . . .

best, Klaus

[Ben Rubinstein]

The good thing is that I doubt that I will have enough material for exhibition, especially as the exhibition will coincide with a book I'll be shooting for at the same time, for another 3-4 years. Scanners will have changed a lot by then so I don't think it's worth investing in the scanning now, rather wait until then and either drumscan or if the cheaper options are good enough in 2011, use another solution. I will of course buy a flatbed so I can view my work in the meantime, something like the 4990, etc.

That said, eventhough the decision on the top level scanning for huge prints can wait, the choice of film is a decision I have to make now hence my question.

The output will be on whatever the inkjet option of the day is, I was starting to look into papers, etc (I have a friend with a Canon ipf8000 that can go 44" wide) but again, no point worrying about it now when it won't be relevant for a few years, you remember what inkjet printers were like 4 years ago?

When I've had my 645 (Delta 100) work scanned on an Imacon 848 I told the operator to scan it as flat as possible in 16 bit to preserve the detail. I still had a lot of difficulty with the sky though to bring it back in and that was with a relatively non contrasty day, the lighting was pretty flat to start with. If scanning yourself then you can scan twice once at the required density and once darker to layer. When you are having a pro scan done, it's scanned once but only optimally for one density requiring a serious curve for shadow/highlight areas and the resulting leap in grain.

http://www.bphotography.co.uk/fairy.jpg

This is the image I was talking about, on the left is the scanned image, very flat, on the right is the image after I finished with it. The sky though was a nightmare to deal with, the information was there but bringing it down made the grain go wild!

[Nicolas Claris]

Hi Ben
just for the pleasure of playing while the TV is playing an old Sunday evening film...
It took me, about 2 minutes to do this, though it would have been easier and more precise to work on a larger file... I admit some more work is needed on the sky/mountain frontier...

http://mnclaris.free.fr/forum/fairy_2.jpg

[Ben Rubinstein]

Yeah that took the most time! It didn't take too long to get the rest of it perfect, the scan was flat enough that there was plenty room, the sky was a nightmare because of the sharp edged join and taming the grain that came up like golfballs.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Does anyone actually know of a good way to do edges like that rather than the pixel by pixel approach? Non of the popular methods work with such a harsh line.

[Nicolas Claris]

have you tried to make a selection and paste it on a new layer?

[Ben Rubinstein]

I decided to do it again to see if I could get it done any faster, using the method of 'paste one into the mask of the other' I got the traditional awful halo-ing that I'd had to paint in at 300% last time, I tried a find edges but it wasn't accurate enough and far too harsh so I pasted the sky (selected with find edges) on the lighter one, and then painted in the darker one again from a seperate layer. It was a lot faster but still clumsy...

This is an example using some pretty basic burn and dodge, not too bad but I wish there was an easier way to work with that kind of sky, especially as the files will be even huger!

Pain in the neck...

http://www.bphotography.co.uk/fairy2.jpg

[Ben Rubinstein]

This is really why I'm looking for a film that will hold the highlights down as much as possible eventhough it may give a pretty flat neg, it is far easier to work with at this end.

[Ray West]

Hi Ben,

If you make a new layer, then do a curve, so foreground and mountains (but not sky) is black, then you can select the land sky boundary pretty easily, in a number of ways. May be accurate enough, can't tell at this size.

Best wishes,

Ray

[Ben Rubinstein]

It isn't accurate enough, that's the problem, in theory it should work but the two versions don't line up due to more contrast on the darker version (it has more edge think of how USM works). There is a very noticeable 'line' where the two don't match up and if you blur it you end up back at the filling in halo stage which has plagued me since I started this stuff with digital.

Here is a screenshot of what the line looks like when trying to do this, you can see the layers and the history of what I've done. I've tried every single way I know to do this without it creating a 'join' line but the only thing that works is using gaussian blur and then you end up with the halo that necessitates hours of painting in pixels on the mask. Anyone who can help would be most appreciated. It is the same whether using two files, one light and one dark, or starting with one 'flat' file and making a dark and light layer. Always the join mark as the dark layer is 'bigger' on the join due to the added contrast firming up the edges which are 'fuzzy' and light on the lighter version.

http://www.bphotography.co.uk/fairywindow.jpg

[Ray West]

How about if you invert one copy, and take the other half, if you get what I mean?, or maybe make the sky a bit larger - clouds are random, anyway.

[Nicolas Claris]

It isn't accurate enough, that's the problem, in theory it should work but the two versions don't line up due to more contrast on the darker version (it has more edge think of how USM works). There is a very noticeable 'line' where the two don't match up and if you blur it you end up back at the filling in halo stage which has plagued me since I started this stuff with digital.

Here is a screenshot of what the line looks like when trying to do this, you can see the layers and the history of what I've done. I've tried every single way I know to do this without it creating a 'join' line but the only thing that works is using gaussian blur and then you end up with the halo that necessitates hours of painting in pixels on the mask. Anyone who can help would be most appreciated. It is the same whether using two files, one light and one dark, or starting with one 'flat' file and making a dark and light layer. Always the join mark as the dark layer is 'bigger' on the join due to the added contrast firming up the edges which are 'fuzzy' and light on the lighter version.

http://www.bphotography.co.uk/fairywindow.jpg

what feather radius did you apply to your selection before working it?
0.4 is a good start...

[Dean Jones]

Hi Dean!

You got a D4000? Me too :-) . What software do you use? I´m using Polaris at the moment - i´ve got it cheap with the dongle - but i will try SilverFast for Howtek these days. It runs on OS X - i just have to buy a Scuzzy card for my G5 Mac.


How do you run your Howtek?



Hi Klaus.....I have the Howtek 4500 running on an old G3....but it's quite painful as the Mac only has a 4 gig HD!
I have a SCSI card in my other PC which has a big drive, but I was concerned about fiddling with the scanner and losing the lot..........At present it's quite clumsy....I scan to the G3, then network it to a G4 that has USB and a CD burner. I simply whack a Sandisk Cruzer into the Mac then ship it across to the PC.
I have a copy of Silverfast AI 5, but not sure whether that will run the Howtek.
Quite happy to leave the setup as is, but.........any suggestions?

Cheers, Dean.

[Klaus Esser]

Hi Klaus.....I have the Howtek 4500 running on an old G3....but it's quite painful as the Mac only has a 4 gig HD!
I have a SCSI card in my other PC which has a big drive, but I was concerned about fiddling with the scanner and losing the lot..........At present it's quite clumsy....I scan to the G3, then network it to a G4 that has USB and a CD burner. I simply whack a Sandisk Cruzer into the Mac then ship it across to the PC.
I have a copy of Silverfast AI 5, but not sure whether that will run the Howtek.
Quite happy to leave the setup as is, but.........any suggestions?

Cheers, Dean.

Hello Dean!

Yes - it´s a bit clumsy, but it runs! :-) I put a two-channel scuzzy ultra card into the G3 and built a level 0 RAID of two 8GB IBM drives which i placed inside the G3 and have the OS and scanprogrammes on the standard IDE drive which i updated to 80 GB
That´s fast (there´s a G4-processor update in it) - and big enough to do even very large scans. After scanning i send the data per ethernet to my G5 and erase it on the G3.
Th advantage is - beside it´s running well already - i can use the high-end scanprogram Polaris and the G5 is free from scan-business.
SilverFast has a dedicated Howtek D4000 version and only this will run the Howtek! Which software are you using at the moment?

best, Klaus

[Dean Jones]

The software came with the setup....I think it's PIMM? Works OK, but pretty old. Howtek has upgrade from 812 to 813 if that means anything!

Cheers.

[Dean Jones]

Klaus, I was slightly incorrect......I scanned some 6x17 trannies last night 1800dpi 160MB file (TIFF).....software is Scanmaster PIM. Howteck is only 812 upgrade, not 813. Scanner works beautifully, but I suffered a few air bubbles in the oil.....a problem I don't get with 4x5's?
I have a loader, so pressure was evenly applied, I might try again tonight using a little more oil? Dry scan left Newton rings of course..
Cheers.

[Klaus Esser]

Klaus, I was slightly incorrect......I scanned some 6x17 trannies last night 1800dpi 160MB file (TIFF).....software is Scanmaster PIM. Howteck is only 812 upgrade, not 813. Scanner works beautifully, but I suffered a few air bubbles in the oil.....a problem I don't get with 4x5's?
I have a loader, so pressure was evenly applied, I might try again tonight using a little more oil? Dry scan left Newton rings of course..
Cheers.

Hi Dean!

I use gel instead of oil - it´s thicker and more evenly spreaded. But it´s a mess to clean up . . ;-)
Will try oil these days - it´s faster.

Btw.: what is Scanmaster PIM? I never heard of.

best, Klaus

[Carsten Wolff]

Hmm, I have to apologize for not reading thorough all posts, but just after "scanning" across them :), it seems to me that
working with LF is starting to sound simple (and cheap). I use both digital and LF, but have stopped short of using 8x10".
5x7" has recently gained new popularity.
5x7s I and many others have taken hold up well to 40x50"+ printing, as that's only a very reasonable 8x enlargement.
However, a single 8x10" shot can get you sharp 60x80" prints with relative ease.

In any case, though, stitching is also of course not a matter of digital vs. LF:
If you're really keen on pictoral grandeur in the dimensional sense (say, you're from New York ;)), you could naturally also stitch in LF and avoid a whole gamut of perspective change issues by using rear-shift, as the lens isn't moving at all :)).
Imagine, (let's just call it "laying";)), you're "laying" e.g. three 5x7s into a nice 5x21" image (you'd need a Fujinon-C 600mm, or something else with 22", or 550mm coverage and a camera that can handle that amount of shift, like my modified old Arca].... However, should you decide to process it digitally (e.g. @2500dpi scan from 105 square inches of film), combined, you'd end up with largish image files. An alternative would be just making individual prints in a tryptich of course, with a pretty "seamless" result due to the lack of perspective change problems. (One could also do e.g. 6, or 8, or whatever 4x5"s, but you'd need an adaptible 8x10 camera or such for that anyway.
....40x150" (or at least 60x200") if you used, say, eight 4x5"sheets of film) prints with razorsharp detail anyone?

[Jack_Flesher]

I'm coming in late to this discussion, but will offer my experiences anyway in case they offer assistance...

I have been the whole gamut from high-resolution DSLRs to MF digital backs, to LF film, through LF scanning backs and finally back to LF film. FWIW I have settled on a pair of 5D's for my DSLRs and both 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras for when I need ultimate detail.

I won't bore you with all of my reasoning unless there is interest in hearing it, but here is a brief summary:

The 5D's offer great image quality at reasonable cost. A pair of them allows me to have two primes mounted and available at all times. The higher-cost and heavier-weight 1-series bodies are not as convenient in this regard, though I admit they do have certain other advantages. My primary lenses are the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 for street and travel, and the 24, 45 and 90 TSE lenses for landscape. I have the 70-200/4 IS zoom for my long lens and even a 100-400 for the very rare occasion I want to shoot wildlife or distant sporting events. I had an ultra-wide zoom but rarely used for travel or landscape so no longer bother with one.

My big issue with MF DB's was the lack of tilt and shift lenses and the complexity of mounting and using same on a view camera. Camera movements get very sensitive with smaller formats and shorter lenses -- so sensitive they become almost impractical in use at 645 MF format sizes.

Hence my move to a LF scanning back. The image quality is stunningly superb -- as good as drum-scanned 8x10 -- but they simply are not very convenient for field use. If I shot mostly subjects that did not move and mostly in a studio, this would be my "Nirvana" imaging-quality solution.

Hence my move BACK to LF film. 4x5 is convenient in the field, especially with readyloads which eliminate the need to load and unload holders, take up very little room in the bag and are virtually free of dust. 4x5 makes 32x40 prints of exceptional detail. 8x10 is there for the ultimate in imaging quality; a drum-scanned 8x10 will easily print with exceptional detail to 60x80. With a wide 150mm lens on the 8x10 (equivalent to about a 20mm lens on 35mm), I have a very detailed 4x10 panoramic negative which will print out at 32x80 with amazing detail.

The biggest decision-factor for me in addition to having all of the movement flexibility and convenience was cost per frame. The per-shot cost of 8x10 film is about $15 with custom lab processing. In a normal year I might shoot 50 8x10 frames -- $750 per year. But I only drag the 8x10 out for specific projects where I need that amount of detail For most field uses I will shoot 4x5 at about $7 per shot cost with readyloads custom processed. Here I may hit 200 frames per year for another $1500. I may pay need a dozen drum scans in a year for the very best images, but I have a friend that will do that for me so I have no cost other than a few lunches. So at most, I will spend on the order of $2500 in a year on film and processing; a figure I submit is significantly less than the depreciation hit I would take on a 30+MP DB. As for the cost of hardware, most LF gear I have purchased second hand and can easily sell for what I paid for it, so IMO that is a neutral.

Hope this helped,

[Ben Rubinstein]

So what you are saying is that I need a friend with a drum scanner right? :D

[Jack_Flesher]

So what you are saying is that I need a friend with a drum scanner right? :D

LOLOLOL! Not really. I scan my stuff on an el-cheapo Epson 4990 flatbed (at 2400 LPI) and you'd be amazed at how good a job it does for up to say a 6x print (24x30 from 4x5 and 48x60 on 8x10). I'm not saying it's as good as a drum scan, but more than good enough for outstanding prints. For the true winner shots, you'll want the best scan you can get and that's a drum...

Cheers,

[marc wilson]

I could not agree with Jack's comments more.
And to push it further no matter how much stitching you do with a 5d or other file to create whatever file size you want the sensor of the 5d simply does not capture the fine detail, tones, etc of large format film.
And I say this from the persepective of one who uses his 5d for much of my day..just for my project work where I know I will be wanting the ability to produce large lightjet prints 54 film still beats anything I have seen from digital one shot capture...and at a good comparative cost per shot basis.

I do feel the only way to get the best image quality out of your sheet film if you want to go the digital route is a drum scan ( real drum not imacon virtual drum) and a lightjet / lambda print and the cost of drum scans is not too great when you realise there will not be that many shots in a year you wish to use in that way.
If you were finding yourself needing to drum scan huge amounts of film you could even pick one up used for a good price these days!!..certainly a lot less than any db is going to cost....a lot less.

Marc

www.marcwilson.co.uk

[Ben Rubinstein]

What's wrong with inkjet Marc? I've only had one outing with inkjet with a print done for me on a Canon 8000ipf and damn if the blacks aren't more neutral then any lightjet print I've ever had. Supposedly better archival properties too.

I now have my full kit of a Tachihara 4X5BF (the non tacky version minus the gold), a Caltar muti coated 90mm (f6.8) and 210mm (f5.6), cable releases, focusing hood (black t-shirt!), loupe, film holders, film changing tent, RRS tripod plate, etc. All I need now is to start my project but it won't be for 6 months plus yet, far too much wedding work booked in. I'm learning how to use it first, the beauty of the focusing screen is that you can learn focusing with movements on the screen without having to spend a fortune on burning film just to learn the basics.

[Stephen Eastwood]

The Canon Printers are truly amazing, they print amazing B&W and color images beyond any lightjet or RA4 printer out, and getting neutral blacks is not that hard and less temperature/chemical dependant, once profiled it holds that profile longterm. I have been consistently impressed with the quality of the new Canon printers.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

[marc wilson]

Just my preference guys.
I do not mean too diss inkjet prints.

I am talking here about my large prints (24x20 inches and 40x30 inches) and for me I prefer lightjet prints.
I just find them more representative of what I deem to be a photographic print..so not better or worse just my preference.
I compare them to my older produced c-type rpints and like them for tnat reason.
Smaller prints (16x12) I also prefer c-type digital prints.

For a year or so about three years back I did produce my smaller prints with epson printers and lyson papers but then went back to the c-type route (digital)

For now I am really happy with my results.

In terms of archival etc I find for the type of sales I have the fact of them being a print onto traditional photographic paper with proven time based archival properties which has been processed through chemicals is also a plus point.