-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Um, Large Format? Advice please.
- Thread starter Ben Rubinstein
- Start date
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.
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
pro member
Ben Rubinstein
pro member
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
pro member
Gigapixel
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
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
pro member
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, AFAIK the largest image to date (8.6 Giga-pixel).
Bart
Klaus Esser
pro member
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Very beautiful reproduction!
You can download it! Just takes 800 screen captures!
Asher
You can download it! Just takes 800 screen captures!
Asher
Ben Rubinstein
pro member
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!).
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!).
Klaus Esser
pro member
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
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
pro member
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
pro member
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
pro member
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.....
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
pro member
Hi Ben!
What 90mm do you have in mind? Beautiful shots you did in the Lake District!
best, Klaus
Ben Rubinstein
pro member
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?
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
pro member
"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
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
New member
4x5 or a 5D?
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...........
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
New member
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.
That's something else, we've forgotten to do....anticipate.
Ben Rubinstein
pro member
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?
Or am I just assuming far too much?
Klaus Esser
pro member
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
pro member
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
pro member
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.
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!
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.
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
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
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...
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...
Ben Rubinstein
pro member
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
pro member
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
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
have you tried to make a selection and paste it on a new layer?
Ben Rubinstein
pro member
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...
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...
Ben Rubinstein
pro member
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.